Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

KING'S SPEECH (ANSWER TO ADDRESS).

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN of the HOUSEHOLD (Mr. W. Dudley Ward) reported His Majesty's Answer to the Address, as followeth:

"I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I have opened the present Session of Parliament."

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Brentford Gas Bill (Suspended Bill),

South Shields Gas Bill (Suspended Bill),

Read the third time, and passed.

DOCKS AND HARBOUR BILLS.

Blyth Harbour Bill.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Whitley): I desire to say on this Bill, and with reference to the other eleven Bills on the Notice Paper, that I have been in consultation with the Lord Chairman in the other House. All the Bills deal with practically the same subject, namely, the question of increasing the charges in various docks and harbours. It would seem to us desirable that all the Bills should be referred to one Committee, and that the Committee should be a joint Committee of the two Houses, in order to save expense to the promoters and to the opponents, and in order that a certain amount of uniformity in the matter may be arrived at. For that reason I have put upon the Paper a Motion that it is expedient that these Bills should be referred to a Joint Committee, and desiring the concurrence of the Lords in that resolu-
tion. I hope, under these circumstances, the House will be prepared to assent to that procedure.
I notice on the Paper an Instruction in the name of the hon. Member for the Eccles Division (Mr. Marshall Stevens) regarding all the Bills. I should not be able to assent to an Instruction from one House to a Joint Committee of both Houses. If the hon. Member will be good enough to supply me with the scheme which he has in mind—which I understand tends towards the uniformity that we desire—I will give him a promise that I will submit it to the Chairman of the Joint Committee whoever he may be, and in that way I think the suggestion that he desires to put forward would obtain really better consideration than under the method he proposed by his Motion. I hope the House will assent to the Second Readings on that understanding.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed.
Bristol Corporation Bill (by Order),
Read a second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Dublin Port and Docks Bill (by Order),
Read a second time, and committed.
Manchester Ship Canal Bill (by Order),
Read a second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Bill (by Order),
Read a second time, and committed.
Milford Docks Bill (by Order),
Read a second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Newport Harbour Commissioners Bill, Swansea Harbour Bill, Tees Conservancy Bill, Tyne Improvement Bill, Waterford Harbour Bill, Wear Navigation and Sunderland Dock Bill (all by Order),
Read a second time, and committed.
Glasgow and South Western Railway (Ayr Harbour Transfer) Order Confirmation Bill,
Read a second time, and ordered to be considered To-morrow.
Resolved, "That it is expedient that the Blyth Harbour Bill, Bristol Corporation Bill, Dublin Port and Docks Bill, Manchester Ship Canal Bill, Mersey Docks and
Harbour Bill, Newport Harbour Commissioners Bill, Swansea Harbour Bill, Tees Conservancy Bill, Tyne Improvement Bill, Waterford Harbour Bill, and Wear Navigation and Sunderland Dock Bill be committed to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons."
Message to the Lords to communicate this Resolution and to desire their concurrence.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

STANDING ORDERS.

Mr. Betterton, Mr. Vaughan-Davies, Sir Arthur Fell, Mr. Edward Kelly, Colonel Mildmay, Sir Newton Moore, Mr. O'Grady, Major Hugh O'Neill, Sir William Pearce, Sir Archibald Williamson, and Mr. John William Wilson nominated Members of the Select Committee on Standing Orders.—[Mr. Vaughan-Davies.]

Oral Answers to Questions — DOBRUDJA (BULGARIAN POPULATION).

Major NEWMAN: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that British troops are being employed in the south portion of the Dobrudja to assist Roumanian gendarmes in the task of forcibly converting the Bulgarian population to Roumanian rule, and in suppressing the measure of local government, education, and religion formerly enjoyed by its inhabitants; will he say why the Roumanians are given the rights of conquerors before any decision as to the ultimate destiny of the Dobrudja has been arrived at by the Peace Conference; is he aware of the repugnance felt by officers and men at this duty; and will instructions be sent that the British troops in the district are to hold scales evenly between the Roumanian authorities and the local population pending a decision of the Conference?

Captain GUEST (Joint Patronage Secretary to the Treasury): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. The Roumanians have assumed the task of administering the territory over which they exercised sovereign rights under the Treaty of 1912, and which was wrested from them in 1916 by the Bulgarians and
Germans. The British troops are kept in the Dobrudja at the urgent request of our Allies. They are solely concerned with the maintenance of order, and not in any way interfering with the political rights or religious beliefs of the inhabitants.

Major NEWMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the inhabitants have no rights at all under Roumanian rule if they are Bulgarians?

Captain GUEST: A very large portion of this question refers to the Foreign Office, and I think he had better address any further questions to them.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH EMBASSIES (COMMERCIAL SECRETARIES).

Mr. RAPER: 2.
asked how many commercial secretaries have already been appointed to our Embassies abroad under the new scheme for the development of overseas trade; and how many such, appointments have been filled by men of actual commercial experience?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND (Department of Overseas Trade): Thirteen appointments to posts as commercial counsellor or commercial secretary have been made, and I hope to announce a number of further appointments very shortly. The names and qualifications of the gentlemen appointed to these posts have already been published, but for convenience of reference they will be printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following is the information referred to:—

ARGENTINE.—Mr. H. O. Chalkley.

Commercial Secretary (Grade 1).

H.B.M. Legation, Buenos Aires.

Formerly of H.M. Consular Service.

Appointed Commercial Attaché at Buenos Aires, January, 1916.

BELGIUM.—Mr. J. E. McCulloch.

Commercial Secretary (Grade 1).

H.B.M. Legation, Brussels.

From 1905–18 Manager of the Indian and Overseas Department of Messrs. Cox and Co., 16, Charing Cross, S.W.1.

Mr. M. N. Kerney.

Commercial Secretary (Grade 2).

H.B.M. Legation, Brussels.

Unsalaried Vice-Consul at Antwerp, 1907–14. Subsequently Secretary to Belgian Trade Committee.

BRAZIL.—Mr. E. Hambloch.

Commercial Secretary (Grade 1).

H.B.H. Legation, Rio de Janeiro.

Acting Consul-General at Rio de Janeiro, 1910–14.

Appointed Commercial Attaché at Rio de Janeiro in January, 1916.

CHINA.—Mr. H. H. Fox, C.M.G.,F.R.G.S.

Commercial Counsellor.

H.B.M. Commercial Counsellor's Office, Shanghai.

Formerly of H.M. China Consular Service (1890–1917).

Appointed Commercial Attaché in China in April, 1917.

Mr. C. A. W. Rose, C.I.E.

Commercial Secretary (Grade 2).

H.B.M. Legation, Peking.

Formerly of H.M. China Consular Service from 1898.

Employed as Assistant Commercial Attaché in China from February, 1915.

FRANCE.—Mr. J. Addison.

Commercial Counsellor.

H.B.M. Embassy, Paris.

Of H.M. Diplomatic Service.

Appointed an Assistant Secretary to the British Plenipotentiaries at the Second Peace Conference at the Hague, 1907.

Appointed Assistant Commercial Attaché in connection with Blockade Work at Paris in August, 1917, and subsequently Commercial Adviser on Blockade matters.

GREECE AND SERBIA.—Mr. E. C. D. Rawlins.

Commercial Secretary (Grade 1).

At the Department of Overseas Trade.

Formerly of H.M. Levant Consular Service.

Vice-Consul at Canea, Crete, 1911–17, and from September, 1917, in charge of the Oriental Section of the Department of Overseas Trade.

ITALY.—Mr. E. Capel Cure.

Commercial Counsellor.

H.B.M. Embassy, Rome.

Has lived many years in Italy, where he has acted as correspondent to "The Times." Holds an engineering degree in an Italian University.

Temporary appointment as Assistant Commercial Attaché at Rome, January, 1917

JAPAN—Mr. E. T. F. Crowe, C.M.G. Commercial Counsellor.

H.B.M. Commercial Counsellor's Office, Yokohama.

Formerly of H.M. Japan Consular Service, 1897–1906.

Appointed Commercial Attaché in Japan, April, 1906.

Mr. H. A. F. Horne.

Commercial Secretary (Grade 2).

H.B.M. Commercial Counsellor's Office, Yokohama.

Formerly of H.M. Japan Consular Service, 1902–1918.

RUSSIA.—Mr. J. Picton Bagge.

Commercial Secretary (Grade 1).

H.H.M. Consulate-General, Odessa.

Has served in various posts in H.M. Consular Service in Russia from 1905 and, since 1915 has been acting Consul-General at Odessa.

SPAIN AND PORTUGAL.—Mr. H. M. Villiers, M.V.O.

Commercial Secretary (Grade 1).

22, Montalban, Madrid.

Consul at Malaga, 1913–14 and 1915–18.

In addition to the above, Sir F. Oppenheimer, K.C.M.G., and Mr. E. Weakley, C.M.G., who are at present working at the Foreign Office, still hold appointments as Commercial Attachés under the old scheme.

Oral Answers to Questions — FISHING AND TERRITORIAL WATERS.

Major ENTWISTLE: 3.
asked whether an international court of justice is to be set up to secure impartial administration of international laws relating to fishing and territorial waters?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): Disputes arising on these matters would appear to be susceptible of reference to the Permanent Court of International Justice the establishment of which is contemplated in the draft covenant of the League of Nations.

Major ENTWISTLE: 4.
asked whether it is the policy of the British Government at the Peace Conference to press for the universal recognition of the three-mile limit for territorial waters?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I recognise the importance of this question and am making inquiries as to whether it is to be considered at the Peace Conference.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONSULAR SERVICE.

Mr. HIGHAM: 5.
asked what steps, if any, are being taken immediately to reform and augment the Consular Service in view of the urgency of the need to develop British trade in markets overseas?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As stated in a reply to a question by the hon. Member for Aberdeen on the 13th February, a, comprehensive scheme of reform dealing with the whole conditions of the salaried Consular service, including the points mentioned by the hon. Member, is in the hands of the printer and will be submitted to the Cabinet for consideration within the next few days.

Sir F. HALL: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will say whether there are at the present time any Consuls in the British service of enemy origin, and, if so, the number, and to what posts they are attached; if any Consuls of alien nationality have been appointed during the last four years, and, if so, the number in each of the years 1915, 1916, 1917, and 1918, their names, and to where they were appointed; if he will state whether regulations have been made to secure that in future British nationality and business capacity shall be the only recognised qualifications for such appointments; and if he will lay upon the Table the terms and conditions that now obtain in the matter?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: There are no Consular officers of enemy origin in the salaried Consular Service at present, if by enemy origin is meant a naturalised British subject of enemy birth. One or two unsalaried officers of alien nationality have been appointed in the last four years. These have, since the date of Lord Robert Cecil's pledge in the House of 22nd August, 1916, had the personal consideration and approval of the Secretary of State or the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, in accordance with the terms of the pledge. I am prepared to furnish the hon. and gallant Member with their names and the places to which they have been appointed. With regard to the latter part of this question, the old Regulations are still in force, which precluded the appointment to the salaried Service of any person not being a natural-born British subject. Lord Robert Cecil's pledge of 22nd August, 1916, further safeguards appointments to the unsalaried Service. In reference to the final part of the question a Selection Committee sits
weekly to review candidates and ensure that existing vacancies are filled by the most suitable people. As regards the future, this question is dealt with in detail in the reform scheme mentioned in my answer to the hon. Member for Aberdeen.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT (TRIBUNALS AND THE BAR).

Mr. HOGGE: 6.
asked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the mixed Court of Appeal of the mixed tribunals of Egypt has forbidden, without a hearing, an English barrister in Egypt to have chambers in two places; and whether he has any statement to make on the subject?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: A complaint to this effect has been received from a barrister practising in Egypt and has been referred to His Majesty's High Commissioner in Cairo for a report.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

DOWAGER EMPRESS (PERSONAL SAFETY).

Colonel CAMPION: 7.
asked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to the whereabouts of the Dowager Empress of Russia; whether any steps haves been made, or can be made, to secure her safety; and whether he has any information showing that she is in the Crimea?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The Dowager Empress of Russia is understood to be now in the Crimea, which she does not desire to leave at present. Such steps as are practicable have been taken to secure her safety.

BOLSHEVIST GOVERNMENT (MASSACRES).

Lieutenant-Colonel W. GUINNESS: 8.
asked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information that Russian officers who have been prisoners in Germany are being sent back to Russia, where they are collected in large batches and shot by the Bolsheviks?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The most recent information received by His Majesty's Government is to the effect that large numbers of Russian officers who have been prisoners of war in Germany have been repatriated to Russia, and that many
of those who refused to join the Bolshevik army have been shot by the Bolshevik authorities.

Lieutenant-Colonel Sir S. HOARE: Can the hon. Gentleman circulate the information which he has on the subject before the White Paper?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The subject of issuing literature relating to Bolshevik government is under the consideration of the Government.

Lieutenant-Colonel GUINNESS: 9.
asked whether in the invitation to Russian Governments to attend a Conference at Prinkipo any condition was imposed as to the cessation of massacres?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The invitation by the Allied Governments to the various Russian groups to attend the Conference at Prinkipo was issued on the condition that there should be a general truce of arms among the parties invited, and that aggressive military action of all kinds should cease.

Lieutenant-Colonel GUINNESS: Does the hon. Gentleman think that military action would cover these quite unconstitutional massacres?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I should not like to be asked to reply to that. I am inclined to agree with my hon. Friend.

Lieutenant-Colonel GUINNESS: Will the hon. Gentleman make representations that in future no such proposals should be put forward without expressly providing for cessation of massacres?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Yes, Sir. I will respectfully convey the suggestion to the right quarters.

Colonel ASHLEY: Are we to understand that this unfortunate proposal is now definitely at an end?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I must have notice of the question.

Commander BELLAIRS: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that Phillips Price, formerly correspondant of the "Manchester Guardian," has been editing a Bolshevist newspaper, the "Call," which is spread among British troops in the Murman territory; whether the newspaper has incited them to revolt; and whether full information has been collected in regard to this man with a view to his ultimate trial?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the first and second parts of the hon. and gallant Member's question is in the affirmative. Information has been collected in regard to the activities of Mr. Phillips Price, and will be available in the event of his return to this country, and of a decision being taken to take action in the case.

Lieutenant-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been called to the decree recently published by the Bolshevist Council of the city of Saratoff as to the treatment of women; and if he will take steps to secure wide publicity for this shocking instance of the result of the present revolutionary rule in Russia in order to assist in counteracting the Bolshevist movement in this country.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Yes, Sir. There is reason to believe that such a Proclamation was issued in several centres and that an attempt was even made to enforce it. But it has not been established whether the Proclamation was issued by the Bolshevik Council or by an anarchist body.

Sir F. HALL: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question, as to whether publicity is to be given to this terrible state of affairs?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have studied the document myself, and am not quite sure whether it is suitable for general publication. I shall be happy to show it to any Members of Parliament who would like to see it.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: If it has not been issued by the Bolshevists, why should it be used by the Government and the Press of the country to run down the Bolshevist government?

REPRESENTATIVES OF PETROGRAD AND MOSCOW.

Commander BELLAIRS: 11.
asked what country or countries now have an official representative or representatives at Petrograd or Moscow?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: It is understood that the Danish Government is represented by a Chargé ďAffaires at Petrograd and a Consul at Moscow. No other Government has any official representative in these cities, so far as His Majesty's Government are aware.

DEUTSCH-ASIATISCHE BANK.

CommanderBELLAIRS: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, when we agreed to forego the Boxer indemnity from China, any conditional action on the part of China was to be taken; whether the Deutsch-Asiatische Bank is continuing its business in China; and whether any terms were asked for China as to the liquidation of this bank and German trading institutions generally?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: No agreement has been made with the Chinese Government to forego the Boxer indemnity. In recognition, however, of China's spontaneous entry into the War, His Majesty's Government agreed to the postponement of the payment of their share of the indemnity for a period of five years. No conditions were attached to this postponement, but in informing the Chinese Government of this decision His Majesty's Government, in concert with the Allied Governments interested, recommended that steps should be taken to sequester German and Austrian houses of business with a view to their ultimate liquidation. The Deutsch-Asiatische Bank is at present in the hands of a European liquidator appointed by the Chinese Government.

Commander BELLAIRS: Will the Government take any steps to expedite this process of liquidating German houses.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I will make inquiries.

POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC SITUATION.

Colonel C. MALONE: 55.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the formation of a small Commission representative of all parties to visit Russia and render a Report on the political and economic situation, to be laid before the House within, say, two months' time?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): The Government do not think that the suggestion of my hon. Friend could be adopted with advantage.

Colonel ASHLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a widespread desire for more information than is given to the House at the present time?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am sure there is, but as the Prime Minister pointed out, I
do not think more information could possibly be given with advantage at the present time.

Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of giving less attention to Russia and more to Ireland?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Both countries, unfortunately, demand attention.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not a fact that at the present time all the information we get from Russia is one-sided?

Colonel LOWTHER: Would it not be of some advantage that hon. Members with Bolshevist leanings and inclinings should be given free tickets to Russia?

Oral Answers to Questions — "CONTINENTAL TIMES," GERMANY.

Commander BELLAIRS: 10.
asked whether the whereabouts is known of the British subject, Aubrey Stanhope, who edited the "Continental Times" in Germany throughout the War; and whether his surrender has been demanded?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The reply to both parts of the question is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMY HORSES.

Sir J. BUTCHER: 15.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that 50,000 horses are being sold by the Army authorities in France to the Belgians, the Foreign Office have made or will make requests to the Belgian Government to pass legislation similar to that existing in this country for ensuring the better protection of animals; what answer the Foreign Office have received to such requests; whether any similar requests have been sent to the French Government; and with what result?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: No, Sir; such a request could not be addressed to the French and Belgian Governments without implying a doubt, which mast be altogether unwarranted, as to the humane treatment which the animals concerned will receive in France and Belgium.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Would it not be well to make representations to the French and Belgian Governments asking them to pass
legislation similar to that which has existed in this country for a great number of years?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: It is a difficult matter to say in the case of any foreign Government that it should pass any particular kind of legislation.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Inasmuch as we are giving them this considerable concession by selling them this large number of horses, would it not be reasonable to press for a condition of this character?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has received an answer to the question on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

ALTERNATIVE PENSIONS FOR OFFICERS.

Colonel YATE: 16.
asked the Pensions Minister if he can state what has been the cause of the delay with regard to alternative pensions for officers; and what steps have been taken to deal with the matter?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Colonel Sir James Craig): Applications for alternative retired pay necessarily involve careful investigation of evidence as to pre-war earnings and earning capacity. It is undeniable that, in the pressure of work due to demobilisation, some delay is inevitably occurring in dealing with officers' cases. The pressure of work in the officers' branch, as in others, is being met as rapidly as possible by increase of staff and accommodation. If the hon. and gallant Member has any particular instances to bring to my notice, they will at once be investigated.

APPRENTICESHIP ALLOWANCES.

Major PRESCOTT: 17.
asked what steps have been taken to grant suitable educational and subsistence allowances to officers and men whose studies or periods of apprenticeship have been interrupted as a consequence of service with the Colours until such time as such officers and men have completed their indentures, or otherwise qualified themselves to practice or engage in the careers which they had chosen prior to mobilisation?

Mr. PARKER (Lord of the Treasury): I would refer the hon. and gallant
Member to the official announcement which was issued on 14th December, a copy of which I am sending him, and to the reply given on 13th February to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (East Division).

WAR PENSIONS COMMITTEES.

Major PRESCOTT: 18.
asked the Pensions Minister if he will give the reason for his objection to the proposal recently made by the clerk of the Tottenham Urban District Council that steps should be taken to bring into being a national association of war pensions committees, particularly in view of the fact that it is claimed that such national association would secure the interchange of views between the various war pensions committees of the country and be helpful to the Government and the Ministry of Pensions in dealing with matters affecting the welfare of disabled and discharged sailors and soldiers and of their dependants?

Sir J. CRAIG: The proposal referred to was made in April of last year. Since that date provision has been made by Section 16 of the War Pensions (Administrative Provisions) Act passed in the last Parliament, enabling local committees to form an association. I may add that advantage has been taken of this provision, and draft rules for such an association have just been submitted for my right hon. Friend's approval. I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy.

BURTON COURT BUILDINGS.

Sir S. HOARE: 19.
asked the Pensions Minister if he will state how long it is intended to retain the present buildings of the Ministry of Pensions in Burton Court, Chelsea; and whether he is aware of the feeling of discontent that is now caused by the disfigurement of this site and the loss of this open space in South-West London?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER Of WORKS (Sir A. Mond): I am at present unable to say for what period it will be necessary to retain the temporary buildings erected in Burton Court for the occupation of the Ministry of Pensions. These premises have cost £100,000 to erect, and were urgently required. I have had a few communications complaining of the erection of these buildings on this site, and with these I have every
sympathy, but I think the hon. and gallant Member will agree with me that the efficient conduct of the work of pensions and awards to our gallant fighting forces must be the primary consideration.

Sir S. HOARE: Could not some other equally suitable site be found?

Sir A. MOND: I am at present engaged in finding additional sites for further accommodation for this Department.

Sir H. CRAIK: Is it not a fact that in the immediate vicinity there are very many houses with bills on them "to let," and could not some of these be used for this purpose?

Sir A. MOND: Perhaps the hon. Gentlean is not aware that the staff accommodated in this building is about 3,000, and that it would require a great many houses to accommodate a staff of that size.

Colonel ASHLEY: Are we to understand that this is a purely temporary measure?

Sir A. MOND: Certainly. These buildings are temporary buildings, and an undertaking has been given that they shall be removed when a permanent building is erected.

BONUS.

Sir J. BUTCHER: 20.
asked the Pensions Minister whether he is aware that the present practice with regard to the payment of the 20 per cent. bonus recently granted on pensions is unsatisfactory, and that in many cases no payment of this bonus is made until a new draft book is issued, which book may in some cases not be issued until months after the date when the bonus first became payable; and whether he will in such cases authorise the local war pensions committees to advance the amount of the bonus, or make other arrangements to meet such cases?

Sir J. CRAIG: For administrative reasons it has been found necessary to spread the payment of bonus over a period of three months by dealing with each case as it comesup, in the ordinary course, for renewal of the book of thirteen weekly payments. This revision of cases is now nearly complete. The local committees were instructed in December last that exceptional cases of hardship brought to their notice where payment of the arrears was urgently needed should be notified
to Pensions Issue Office, so that steps could be taken to deal with them specially. In no circumstances will any person eligible for the bonus fail to obtain it with full arrears.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Do I understand that in these urgent cases the Pensions Committee will be authorised to make advances if a person is entitled to a bonus?

Sir J. CRAIG: Certainly.

KING'S FUND.

Major Earl WINTERTON: 21.
asked the Pensions Minister if he is aware that in the minds of many discharged service men the idea still exists that the King's Fund is intended to be substituted for and not supplemental to pensions given by the State; and if he will take steps at the earliest opportunity to make the facts about the fund widely known?

Sir J. CRAIG: Some misapprehension may exist, as the Noble Lord suggests, but I do not think it can be general, having regard to the very wide publicity which has been given to the King's Fund in the Press. Many articles have appeared in the newspapers, and much literature has been distributed, in which the objects and scope of the Fund have been explained, and prominence has consistently been given to the fact that the grants are not in any sense a substitute for State provision.

PENSIONS WARRANT (EXTENSION).

Colonel ASHLEY: 22.
asked the Pensions Minister whether he will consider an extension of the Pensions Warrant of September, 1918, so as to cover the cases of men who, although they did not serve in a campaign previous to this War, were totally incapacitated in the performance of their military duties?

Sir J. CRAIG: The Committee which discussed the drafting of the former War Warrants considered this question, but were of opinion that pensions for disablement incurred in the performance of military duties in times of peace should not be put upon the same footing as those for disablement incurred through service in the present War.

Colonel ASHLEY: Could not some concession be made?

Sir J.CRAIG: Perhaps my hon. Friend would wait until the Minister is in his place to answer this, as it is really a matter of policy.

SIDNEY BEDFORD (2ND HANTS REGIMENT).

Colonel ASHLEY: 23.
asked the Pensions Minister whether, in view of the promise given by the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Pensions on the 12th November last to consider the cases of men partly disabled in former wars who have been debarred from the benefits of the Royal Warrant of September, 1918, on the ground that their disablement is not among those specified in the First Schedule of the Royal Warrant of 1917, he will favourably review the case of Sidney Bedford, who was seriously injured in a railway accident near Barberton, Transvaal, during the Boer War whilst serving with the 2nd Volunteer Active Service Company of the 2nd Hants Regiment, and whose pension of 1s. 3d. per diem, granted as far back as 1902, has never been raised, although in the mean-time his injuries have grown steadily worse, necessitating three operations; and whether, if his pension cannot now be placed on the level fixed for men similarly injured in this War, the Ministry will consider the extension to him of the treatment allowances laid down in the Royal Warrant of 1918, in view of the fact that he is still under the necessity of attending hospital every day?

Sir J. CRAIG: My hon. Friend is presumably referring to the statement made by the late Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry that the question of extending the benefits of the former War Warrants to other classes of partially disabled men was under consideration. The extension, if decided upon, would have been by further Warrant, as individual cases can only be considered on the basis of existing Warrants. I regret that I have no power to pay treatment allowances to Mr. Bedford, or to consider his case under the Royal Warrant of September, 1918. If, however, he is in fact totally incapacitated from work by reason of the disability for which he was discharged, he may be granted an increased pension of 27s. 6d. a week, under the Warrant of April, 1918, for the period during which the total incapacity lasts. My right hon. Friend has therefore issued instructions for Mr. Bedford to be examined by a medical board.

PENSIONS ARREARS.

Colonel ASHLEY: 24.
asked the Pensions Minister if he will state under what Regulation arrears of pension are being limited to one year; and whether, in view
of the fact that the then Under-Secretary to the Pensions Ministry in the House on 18th June last gave an assurance that pension under Article 9 of the Royal Warrant, 1917, would be issuable from the date on which disability due to military service began, and that he would inquire into any cases brought to his notice where arrears of pension from that date have not been paid, he will inquire into the case of ex-Sergeant J. Donnelly, No. 356, East Kent Regiment, whose disability dated from 18th December, 1914, but who was not awarded pension until 26th March, 1917, and has been granted the arrears for one year only, from 5th March, 1916, to 25th March, 1917?

Sir J. CRAIG: The Regulation under which arrears of pension are being limited to one year prior to date of first application, except in special cases of hardship, is based primarily on Article 7 of the Royal Warrant of 1914, which is scheduled in current Warrants as one of the provisions of previous Warrants remaining in force. Under that Article,
all pay or other pecuniary advantages granted by this Our Warrant which shall not have been claimed within a period of twelve months shall be deemed to be forfeited, unless under such exceptional circumstances as shall be approved by Our Army Council or by an officer duly authorised by them.
I am inquiring into Sergeant Donnelly's case to see if there are any exceptional circumstances.

HOSPITAL CHARGES.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: 25.
asked the Pensions Minister if he is now in a position to make any statement in regard to the maintenance charges to officers and men in hospitals?

Sir J. CRAIG: I am not yet in a position to make any statement with regard to the disparity between the maintenance charges for officers in hospitals and those for men, but the question is being very closely considered.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: When may we expect a statement?

Sir J. CRAIG: I hope my right hon. Friend the Pensions Minister will be in his place this day week to answer the question.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: I will put it down again.

OFFICERS' PENSIONS (WAR BONUS).

Mr. PENNEFATHER: 26.
asked the Pensions Minister whether the Government have any intention of paying a war bonus on officers' pensions on the same lines as on the men's pensions?

Lieutenant-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: 27.
asked why the temporary 20 per cent. bonus on pensions granted to warrant officers, non-commissioned officers, and men is not applicable to officers in view of the fact that their living expenses are increased in the same ratio by prevailing high prices?

Sir J. CRAIG: The question of war bonus on officers' pensions is still under consideration.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: When may we expect a decision on this?

Sir J. CRAIG: The same reply applies.

DISABLED MEN (TRAINING).

Sir HENRY HARRIS: 28.
asked the Pensions Minister when it is proposed to transfer the training of disabled men to the Ministry of Labour; whether legislation will be required in order to give effect to the transfer; and whether local war pensions committees and joint disablement committees will shortly receive some communication on the subject?

Sir J. CRAIG: The transfer of industrial training to the Ministry of Labour will be carried out as soon as that Department have completed their arrangements for its administration. Legislation, as my right hon. Friend is advised, is not necessary to give effect to the transfer. The general terms of transfer have been arranged between the two Departments, and an announcement is now being sent to local committees.

SERVICE GRATUITIES.

Mr. REMER: 29.
asked the Pensions Minister whether his attention has been called to the dissatisfaction existing among discharged soldiers and sailors at the action of the Ministry in deducting past payment of service gratuities that were paid on discharge from the present special supplementary war service gratuity, namely, £5 for twelve months' service?

Captain GUEST: The wargratuity is, by decision of the War Cabinet, a substitute for, not an addition to, the smaller
Service gratuity. It follows that where the Service gratuity has already been, drawn, it has to be deducted from the gross amount now payable, to avoid an obviously indefensible inequality of treatment.

OFFICERS WIDOWS GRATUITIES

Colonel YATE: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will recommend the alteration of the Royal Warrant of August last with a view to the payment of gratuities to widows of officers who have lost their lives by disease contracted on, or aggravated by, service as well as to the widows of officers who have been killed or who have died of wounds received on service?

Sir J. CRAIG: I have been asked to reply to this question. The question of the payment of gratuities to the widows of officers who died of disease is, as I recently informed the House, under consideration in connection with the review of the Officers' Warrant.

Colonel YATE: When shall I be able to get information on that subject?

Colonel CRAIG: I will let the hon. and gallant Member know as soon as we are able to come to a decision in the matter.

PRE-WAR PENSIONERS.

Sir R. NEWMAN: 51.
asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government will take steps to extend, as far as possible, to old sailors and soldiers, whose pensions were granted previous to the War, the same benefits that His Majesty's Government may propose to confer on those who have served in His Majesty's Forces since 1914?

Lieutenant-Colonel DALRYMPLE WHITE: 52.
asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he will now consider the raising of pensions granted in the past to non-commissioned officers and men of the Army, and corresponding ranks in the Navy, for long and good services, in cases where the present pension does not exceed 1s. 6d. per day, and the man concerned is either over sixty years of age or incapacitated by ill-health?

Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): I will answer these two questions. This subject has been carefully considered by His Majesty's Government, who are not prepared to adopt either of the courses suggested.

POST OFFICE SIGNALLERS.

Mr. SITCH: 88.
asked the Lord Privy whether the Government have decided to pay a War gratuity to all soldiers on discharge with the exception of conscientious objectors; whether Post Office signallers are to be entitled to this gratuity; whether this is a new gratuity or the old gratuity remodelled; and whether there is any reason why the exception which has been made applicable to conscientious objectors should be held to apply to Post Office signallers, who have done most invaluable work during the whole period of the War?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): I have been asked to answer this question. Both these classes are ineligible for the War gratuity, though there is, of course, no connection between them. The Post Office employés so excluded are a small and very special class who have throughout the War drawn full civil pay, in addition to full military pay.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

FLAX CULTIVATION.

Mr. DONNELLY: 30.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can state what Grants of money have been made within the past two years for the extension of flax cultivation in Ireland, and to what bodies or persons such Grants were made, and under what conditions?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Samuels): The Department of Agriculture have given no special Grants during the last two years for the extension of flax cultivation in Ireland. The Department's ordinary flax schemes were in operation during that time, and the amount expended on these schemes was in 1917–18 £4,205, and in the current financial year £4,293. In addition to the above, the Department have expended in carrying out the Flax Seed (Ireland) Order, 1917, a sum of £5,576 in 1917–18, and a sum of £4,066 in current year. The cost of administering these Orders is borne by the Ministry of Munitions, by which the Department's expenditure is recouped. The Ministry of Munitions have spent in Ireland considerable sums of money during the past two years in controlling and improving scutching, in training apprentive scutchers, and in buying and importing flax seed for sowing purposes, but it
is not expected on the latter item there will be any loss on the resale of the seed to merchants. I may also refer the hon. Member to the replies given to questions on this subject upon 31st October, 1918.

LANGUAGE.

Mr. DONNELLY: 31.
asked the Chief Secretary what instructions have been given to the Irish police concerning the use of the Irish language; and whether he will consider the advisability of putting an end to the police prosecutions in Ireland against those who speak and use their native tongue?

Mr. SAMUELS: No person is prosecuted in Ireland for using the Irish language.

Mr. DONNELLY: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman is aware that an hon. Member of this House was arrested and detained for giving his name in Irish to a policeman.

Mr. SAMUELS: I think I have heard of the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers. The gentleman was not arrested and detained for speaking Irish or giving his name in Irish.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Is it not the fact that a large number of prosecutions have taken place against farmers for having their names printed in Irish on their carts?

Mr. SAMUELS: I am not aware of any recent cases, but if the hon. Gentleman will give me instances I will have inquiry made.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Will you have the sentences for it quashed?

Mr. DEVLIN: Will it be necessary to put their names on the carts in Scottish now?

MONAGHAN LUNATIC ASYLUM.

Major NEWMAN: 32.
asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that the medical officer and staff of the Monaghan Lunatic Asylum, with the aid of the inmates, seized at the beginning of this month the asylum buildings and established a local soviet or committee, consisting of the staff and inmates, to run the asylum; whether the local authorities were unable to effect an entry to put an end to the committee's rule; and will he say what is the present situation?

Mr. SAMUELS: It is a fact that a strike of the subordinate staff of the asylum occurred as stated in the question, but
the medical superintendent was not identified with it, as suggested by the hon. and gallant Member. For some time the committee of management were unable to effect an entry into the asylum buildings. The staff have resumed duty, and representations made by them are now under consideration.

Major NEWMAN: Has anybody been punished amongst the staff for this outbreak?

Mr. SAMUELS: It is a matter for the asylum authorities. No representation has been made to the Government that anybody was punished.

Mr. DEVLIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the only successfully conducted institutions in Ireland are the lunatic asylums?

Mr. SAMUELS: My view is that not only the lunacy but all other Irish Departments are admirably conducted.

FISHING INDUSTRY.

Mr. T. W. BROWN: 33.
asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that the herring fishery in Strangford Lough is being ruined by the number of seals that infest the lough; and whether steps will be taken to preserve this fishery?

Mr. SAMUELS: The herring fishing in Strangford Lough is subject to fluctuations like all such fishings, especially in narrow waters where the entry and movements of the herring are uncertain. The Department of Agriculture have no information which, would connect any existing condition of the herring fishing in the Lough specifically with the prevalence of seals, but on general principles the Department would regard sympathetically any local projects for the destruction of seals.

Mr. BROWN: 34.
asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that the fishing industry at Kirkcubbin, county Down, is handicapped by the absence of steps or other suitable landing-place on the pier, and that there is the greatest difficulty in landing fish caught in this district; and if he will provide facilities for transferring the fish from the boats to the pier?

Mr. SAMUELS: Kirkcubbin Pier is private property, and expenditure upon it out of public funds is accordingly precluded.

Mr. BROWN: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the
acquisition of this pier by the Department in the interests of this important industry?

HORSE BREEDING.

Captain DIXON: 35.
asked the Chief Secretary if he will see that any scheme to improve the breed of light horses in England, which includes financial support to the farmers and breeders, shall equally apply to Ireland?

Mr. SAMUELS: Efforts will be made to obtain for Ireland a fair share of any financial assistance which may be allocated for the improvement of light horse breeding in the United Kingdom.

Captain DIXON: 36.
asked the Chief Secretary if he will remove the embargo on the importation of pure-bred Percheron stallions and mares into Ireland which have not been Army horses?

Mr. SAMUELS: The Department of Agriculture cannot see their way to grant any general authority for the proposed importation, but each application to land in Ireland a Percheron stallion or mare will be duly considered upon its merits.

Major NEWMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the one horse we do not want in Ireland is the Percheron stallion?

Captain DIXON: 37.
asked the Chief Secretary what steps are being taken to improve the breed of light horses in Ireland?

Mr. SAMUELS: The steps taken to improve the breeding of light horses in Ireland include registration of stallions, the granting of nominations to selected mares, and the giving of loans and premiums under certain conditions for stallions. Further steps are being taken to put into operation the Licensing of Stallions Act.

PRISON OFFICERS (PAY).

Mr. DONNELLY: 38.
asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that a permanent increase of 10s. per week in wages has recently been granted to the prison officers of England and Scotland, but only to a section of the Irish prison officers; and if he will take steps to have the increase extended to all the Irish prison officers?

Mr. SAMUELS: The increase of pay referred to has been granted to the various
classes of officers in the Irish prisons service corresponding to the classes of the English prisons service. The increase has not been extended to certain officers of the Irish prisons service, about twenty in number, who, in 1916, elected to retain obsolete scales of pay with emoluments, fuel and light, which are no longer recognised as part of the remunerations of other prison officers in Ireland or in Great Britain. The position of these officers who have not participated in the increase is at present under consideration.

LOUGH NEAGH DRAINAGE.

Mr. DONNELLY: 39.
asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware of the seriousflooding that takes place every year in the Lough Neagh drainage district; that such flooding most injuriously affects five counties to an extent of over 25,000 statute acres, resulting in much loss and suffering to the occupiers of the flooded area; and if he will say what steps, if any, the Government proposes to take to remedy the existing state of things?

Mr. SAMUELS: This is one of the many matters which has been brought to the notice of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary. He is not yet in a position to make any statement on the subject.

RECONSTRUCTION PROBLEMS.

Mr. DEVLIN: 40.
asked the Chief Secretary whether he is now in a position to make any statement as to what steps the Government propose to take in regard to the problems of housing, public health, reconstruction, and demobilisation in Ireland?

Mr. SAMUELS: My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary regrets he is not yet in a position to make any definite statement on the four problems mentioned in the question, but he hopes that he may be in the near future.

Mr. DEVLIN: Has the Irish Government taken any steps during the last six months to consider how these matters are to be dealt with, as they have done in England?

Mr. SAMUELS: I hope my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary will very soon be in this House and have the opportunity of answering.

Mr. DEVLIN: Will he know anything about it when he comes?

Mr. MOLES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is the month in which the boroughs prepare their financial estimates for the year, and that it would greatly facilitate those responsible if particulars were now known so that provision may be made in the rates accordingly?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATURALISATION LAWS.

Mr. GEORGE BALFOUR: 41.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether a Bill will be introduced at an early date providing for a revision of the naturalisation laws of this country?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): In view of the Act making important amendments in the law of nationality and naturalisation which was passed last August, I do not think there is any immediate need of further legislation. Certain further questions not dealt with in that Act are under consideration in consultation with the self-governing Dominions and India with a view to the introduction of legislation, if necessary, at a convenient time.

Oral Answers to Questions — DRUNKENNESS (STATISTICS).

Colonel PICKERING: 43.
asked the Home Secretary if he will issue a Table showing the reduction in the convictions for drunkenness in each county or district during each of the six months from 1st January, 1915, distinguishing the districts which have been subject to the Orders of the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) and those in which, in each of the half-yearly periods, no Orders of the Board were in force?

Mr. SHORTT: I have already, in answer to several similar questions, promised to have a statement prepared on this subject, and I will send the hon. and gallant Member a copy when completed.

An HON. MEMBER: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether in that return women will be separated from men, seeing that the absence of this information vitiates the main return?

Mr. SHORTT: I do not know whether it is possible, but I will see.

Oral Answers to Questions — WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT (DISABLED SOLDIERS AND SAILORS).

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 44.
asked the Home Secretary whether he proposes to adopt the recommendations of the Committee appointed to consider the question of special provision being made in the case of disabled soldiers and sailors returning to civil employment with regard to the payment of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act?

Mr. SHORTT: His Majesty's Government have approved the adoption of a scheme on the lines recommended by the Committee, and legislation will be introduced at an early date to confer the necessary powers on the Departments concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

Mr. G. BALFOUR: 46 and 48.
asked the Prime Minister (1) whether the composition of the proposed League of Nations will be such that no combination of small or recently hostile Powers therein shall be able to control British means of national defence or lawful commercial enterprise or expansion, and (2) whether care will be taken to prevent the proposed League of Nations from having power, by the votes of a majority of non-British members, to order the British people to do anything which that people might consider disastrous to its most vital interests?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It is not possible to discuss details of such subjects by means of question and answer, but my hon. Friend may rest assured that vital British interests will not be jeopardised.

Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when this House will have an opportunity of discussing a rather important matter?

Mr. BONAR LAW: No, I cannot.

Sir CHARLES HENRY: 65.
asked the Prime Minister whether the delegates of the United States at the Peace Conference have notified that if the proposals as regards the League of Nations are adopted they are prepared to modify, and, if so, to what extent, the provisions of the Monroe doctrine?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The point has not, I understand, been raised at the Peace Conference.

Sir C. HENRY: Is it likely to be?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I should not think so.

Oral Answers to Questions — COST OF WAR (INDEMNITIES).

Mr. G. BALFOUR: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is intended to present to Germany for payment the whole bill of costs incurred by the British Empire and its Allies in respect of the War rather than a sum which the Peace Conference may estimate she is able to pay?

Mr. GRATTAN DOYLE: 64.
asked the right hon. Gentleman whether, when settling what indemnity Germany has to pay to the Allies, due regard will be had for the recompense of those unfortunate civilians whose breadwinners, womenfolk, and children have been killed or injured by the bombing raids over unfortified towns of Great Britain?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot add anything to what I have said in reply to similar questions on this subject and to what the Prime Minister said in Debate on the 12th of February.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL DELAY.

Sir C. HENRY: 49.
asked the Prime Minister if he will state whether it is the intention, either by legislation or otherwise, to deal with the recommendations made by the Royal Commission on Judicial Delay, of which the late Lord St. Aldwyn was chairman, which reported previous to the War?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Gordon Hewart): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. Effect has been given to some of the most important recommendations of Lord St. Aldwyn's Commission. Others can be carried into effect only by the action of the judges themselves, and I have no doubt that they have, so far as is practicable, given careful consideration to the recommendations. Others have become obsolete since the Commission reported; others, again, are highly controversial. I may say that there is now no delay in the King's Bench Division. It is, in my opinion, desirable that the state of affairs which has arisen from the War should resume a normal course before further legislation upon the subjects dealt with by the Commission is introduced.

Sir C. HENRY: Could my right hon. Friend state or circulate these recommendations that have become effective?

Sir G. HEWART: I do not know. I will inquire. As my hon. Friend is aware, there were some fifty or sixty recommendations.

Oral Answers to Questions — CLUBS (RESTRICTIONS).

Colonel PICKERING: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether the time has yet arrived for the removal of all restrictions imposed on clubs and on the social habits of the people by reason of the War, in accordance with his promise of 16th December last?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I can add nothing to what I have already said in reply to questions on this subject.

Sir F. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great feeling of dissatisfaction throughout the country, particularly among the smaller clubs, at the continuance of these restrictions, and will he see whether something cannot be done to remove, at all events, some of them in the immediate future?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I quite realise that. The Cabinet Committee was dealing with it yesterday, and I hope will come to a decision immediately.

Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that no social distinctions are made in removing these regulations, having regard to the present industrial unrest?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I certainly can give that promise.

Oral Answers to Questions — COURTS OF LAW (GRATUITOUS PROFESSIONAL ASSISTANCE).

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: 53.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Governmen will consider the question of enabling persons with limited incomes to obtain the services of a public defender in the Courts of law?

Sir G. HEWART: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. It is not clear whether the hon. Member's question refers to criminal or to civil procedure. If it refers to the former, means exist whereby poor prisoners can obtain professional assistance gratuitously under the Poor Prisoners Defence Act, 1903, and, failing this, by the direct action of the judge trying the case. If it refers to the
latter, a system was established some four years ago whereby poor persons can obtain special assistance in civil cases in the High Court, and the working of this system is at present under the consideration of a Committee presided over by Mr. Justice P. O. Lawrence.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: May I ask my right hon. Friend, in regard to the civil side, whether it is not the fact that they have to be penniless before they get any assistance?

Sir G. HEWART: I am certainly not aware of that.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATURALISED ALIENS.

Earl WINTERTON: 54.
asked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to several cases in the Home Counties, of which that of Mr. Sehmer, of Pulborough, is one, of persons of enemy origin but naturalised shortly before the War owning and farming land; if he is aware that, in each case, considerable local feeling and unrest has been caused in the neighbourhood where these persons are by their presence there, even though their loyalty to the Crown may not be in doubt; and whether he will, in any future land legislation, give to county councils the power to expropriate compulsorily all such persons and resell their land to any returned Service men in the locality who are anxious to obtain land?

Mr. SHORTT: I have been asked to answer this question. Whenever any cases of the nature suggested in the first two paragraphs of the question have been brought to notice they have been thoroughly investigated and action taken if any good ground for suspicion was discovered, but in the great majority of cases no reason for uneasiness has been found. I am afraid I cannot give the promise asked with regard to future land legislation.

Earl WINTERTON: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will take into consideration that all these cases form a source of irritation, and that such unrest is most undesirable?

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

MILK.

Captain R. TERRELL: 56.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Cabinet have
taken into consideration the question of the control by the State of the milk supply; and, if so, whether, before arriving at any decision, he proposes to hear the views of those more especially interested?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Mr. McCurdy): I have been asked to reply The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The Food Controller is arranging that the question of future control shall be considered in the first instance by an interdepartmental Conference comprising representatives of the Ministry of Food, the Local Government Boards, and the Departments of Agriculture. Legislation will, of course, be necessary before State control of the milk supply can come into effect, and full opportunity for discussion will be given.

Sir A. YEO: Will he consider the retail trade, who have a great deal of interest in this matter, and who have apparently been ignored by the Department during the whole time of the food control?

Oral Answers to Questions — OUT-OF-WORK DONATION.

Lieutenant-Colonel Sir S. HOARE: 59.
asked the Prime Minister if he will say what decision has been reached by the Cabinet with reference to the continuance or discontinuance of the present rates of unemployment benefit to men and women; what is the number of men and women now receiving it; and what is the weekly amount that is at present being expended upon it?

Mr. PARKER: I have been asked to take this question. It is not proposed to restrict the provisions of the out-of-work donation scheme now in operation except as regards the modification applying to Ireland which was announced in the reply to the hon. and learned Member for York on 17th February.
The number of active policies lodged at Employment Exchanges on 7th February was as follows:

Men.
Women.
Boys.
Girls.
Total.


Civilians—


191,371
427,734
24,538
26,790
670,433


H.M. Forces—


63,277
380
—
—
63,657


254,648
428,114
24,538
26,790
734,090

The average weekly amount paid out during the last three weeks under this scheme is £950,000.

Sir S. HOARE: Do I understand that it is proposed to continue the present rate of benefits at the expiration of the thirteen weeks, which expiration takes place, I believe, in about a fortnight's time?

Mr. PARKER: I think the hon. Member had better put the question down, as I am not in a position to give a reply.

Mr. DEVLIN: Can the hon. Gentleman say why Ireland is being discriminated against in this matter?

Mr. PARKER: I am afraid I cannot, but if the hon. Member will put a question down I will try and get a reply.

Mr. DEVLIN: I did put a question down, and the hon. Gentleman's representative stated that it was on information received. I want to know from whom that information came.

Mr. PARKER: I am afraid I cannot say.

Mr. DEVLIN: If you take away these rights you ought to be able to explain why to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPIRITS (FURTHER SUPPLIES).

Major NEWMAN: 60.
asked the Prime Minister whether the War Cabinet has come to any decision with regard to the release of a sufficient supply of whisky to meet the legitimate needs of the population; and whether a supply of barley has been or is being sent from the United States of America on the condition that it is not used for distilling purposes?

Mr. McCURDY: I have been asked toreply. No decision has yet been reached by the War Cabinet concerning the release of further supplies of whisky. As regards the latter part of the question, I have no knowledge of the transaction to which the hon. Member refers.

Major NEWMAN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that whisky is now being sold, at Christie's as a valuable curiosity?

Colonel ASHLEY: 68.
asked the Prime Minister if he will explain why wine merchants are not allowed to sell brandy for medical purposes in quantities less than a whole bottle, which in view of the present price of brandy places this stimulant, when prescribed by a doctor, beyond the reach, of the poorer classes?

Mr. BONAR LAW: If the hon. Member is referring to restrictions other than those imposed by the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, I am informed by the Central Control Board that their Regulations make special provision for the sale of spirits in quantities less than a whole bottle when required for medical purposes.

Colonel ASHLEY: 69.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the inhabitants of the districts round Preston are unable to obtain spirits in cases of sickness, especially in the case of influenza and pneumonia, when the same is prescribed by the local doctors and a medical certificate is given; if he will explain why the promises made in November and December last that spirits should be released for such purposes have not been carried out; and what steps the Government propose to take in order that the necessary medical treatment may be provided for these sick people?

Mr. McCURDY: I have been asked to reply. In view of the limited supplies available, it was found impracticable to carry out the arrangement contemplated with reference to the supply of spirits to specific districts on medical grounds. The whole question of the release of spirits is now before the War Cabinet.

Colonel ASHLEY: Surely, if we have a lot of spirits in bond, it is absolutely necessary that a certain amount should be released for medical purposes under doctors' certificates, to save the lives of these wretched people who are dying from pneumonia?

Commander Sir EDWARD NICHOLL: Does the hon. Gentleman know that, even when a doctor's certificate is granted, the poor people cannot get the brandy or whisky?

HON. MEMBERS: Answer!

Mr. MacVEAGH: They do not know anything about it. They will have to ask the clerks in the Office.

Colonel ASHLEY: I beg to give notice that I shall put another question on Tuesday on this important subject.

Colonel PICKERING: 92 and 93.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will now state what reasons of public policy or interest now justify the continuance of any restrictions upon the supply of spirits from bond; and (2) if he is aware of the grave resentment and unrest
caused by the failure of sick persons to obtain spirits when medical certificates have ordered such; and if he can state the reason for the withholding of the necessary supply?

Mr. McCURDY: I can only refer the hon. Member to the answers which have already been made on this subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — DECORATIONS AND BADGES.

Mr. BILLING: 61.
asked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the desirability of distinguishing between, decorations awarded for valour in the face of the enemy and those awarded for studious application to work within the offices, he will consider the advisability of introducing a regulation which shall provide that all ribbons for honours won on active service shall be transferred from the left to the right breast?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government are not prepared to adopt this suggestion.

Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the War Cabinet to consider the matter; and is he aware of the feeling among officers in the matter?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I doubt that.

Mr. BILLING: 62.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of the issue of a gilt badge to take the place of the silver badge to all officers and men who are permanently disabled, so that the public may have an opportunity of distinguishing when in mufti these officers and men, and thus prevent them from being hustled in public conveyances and thoroughfares?

Lieutenant-Colonel ARCHERSHEE: 237.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the authorisation of the wearing of an armlet of distinctive colour to discharged and disabled soldiers, both officers and men, who are at present frequently caused considerable pain and discomfort from being crushed in crowds whilst travelling, in view of the fact that the public would undoubtedly assist to protect these men from injury if they could distinguish them by means of some such armlets

Sir J. CRAIG: A white armlet bearing a Royal Crown embroidered in red, of a pattern approved by the King, has been supplied to all fitting hospitals for issue to
men who are so incapacitated by loss of limb or limbs as to necessitate protection in crowds whilst travelling. Over 1,000 of these armlets have been issued from Roehampton alone. It is found, however, that as a rule men decline to wear them, and in many cases will not even accept them, being averse from drawing attention to their disability. I do not think that a gilt badge would prove more effective than the silver badge in securing considerate treatment from the public.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH WIVES OF GERMANS.

Major FRED KELLY: 63.
asked the Prime Minister if it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill allowing a British-born woman married to a German to annul her marriage if she feels she cannot possibly go back to Germany and live with him?

Mr. SHORTT: I have been asked to answer this question. I fear that I cannot hold out any hope of a Government Bill to the effect suggested.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH AMERICA (COMMERCIAL PROPAGANDA).

Mr. HIGHAM: 67.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has information regarding the intensive and continuous film and Press propaganda which is now being carried out in the Argentine and in South America generally by the United States Government; whether his attention has been called to the fact that the United States official committee of public information has established branches in the principal South American capitals and is attached to the United States embassies; that a free news service is supplied to the South American press, with the result that for months, past every newspaper throughout South America has published daily propaganda in its news columns as to the efforts, resources, and prosperity of the United State; and whether he will cause instructions to be given to His Majesty's commercial attachés in South America to furnish a Report on the activities of the United States official committee of public information; and to state what steps are being taken to make provision for Great Britain and the Empire to be similarly represented?

Mr. C. HARMSWORTH: My attention has been drawn to the matter referred to by my hon. Friend. The Government is giving careful attention to the question of commercial propaganda in South America and other countries.

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. HOGGE: 70.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can state the nature of the Committee to be set up to consider the question of increases in old age pensions?

Mr. DEVLIN: 103.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is in a position now to state the nature of the Committee it is proposed to appoint to consider questions arising in connection with old age pensions; and whether he can state the terms of reference and the names of the gentlemen who will form this Committee?

Mr. BALDWIN: I hope to be able to make an announcement shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE CONFERENCE.

COMMISSION OF NATIONAL LABOUR LEGISLATION.

Mr. MADDOCKS: 71.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Commission of National Labour Legislation created by the Peace Conference at Paris is wholly composed of representatives of labour; whether the recommendations of this commission will be submitted for the consideration of a properly constituted body representative of employers; and whether the Commission would add weight to its authority and the conclusions at which it may arrive if there were included in its personnel representatives of employers as well as of employed?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. His Majesty's Government have taken steps to obtain representative views of both employers and employed on the proposals for international labour legislation. As regards the last part of the question, the members of the Commission represent the various Governments by whom they were appointed, and the British members are neither employers nor employed.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR LEGISLATION (ORDERS RESCINDED).

Commander BELLAIRS: 72.
asked the Prime Minister, in view of the multiplicity and complexity of the Orders which were issued under the Defence of the Realm Act and other war legislation, whether he will direct the Departments to issue explanations of the Orders rescinded, when such Orders are rescinded in order to assist the public?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I shall consider my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE ORGANISATIONS (COMPULSORY MEMBERSHIP).

Commander Sir E. NICHOLL: 73 and 75.
asked the Prime Minister (1) whether His Majesty's Government have considered the desirability of introducing a measure making it compulsory on all employers of labour and all workpeople to become members of an appropriate trade organisation in order to ensure the observance of labour agreements made between the recognised representatives of both these sections of the community; and (2), in view of the fact that trade unions have been accorded special privilges by law and of the failure of the trades unions to enforce discipline throughout their membership, with the result that dislocation has taken place in trade to the detriment of the national interest, whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to reconsider the whole question of trades union legislation?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The matters raised in these two questions will no doubt form subjects of discussion at the forthcoming Conference.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCHANT SEAMEN (DEPENDANTS' PENSIONS).

Mr. GOULD: 76.
asked the Prime Minister if, seeing that the dependants of merchant seamen who have lost their lives through exposure to weather, climate, or specially arduous service due to war conditions, are not treated in the same manner, in respect of pensions, as men in the same Service and the sister Service who have been killed as a result of enemy action, he can take steps to rectify this?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridgeman): The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. If the death can reasonably be attributed to war risks, even though not due to direct enemy action, compensation is paid under the Government Compensation Scheme for the Mercantile Marine. Each case is considered on its merits, and the scheme is administered in a generous spirit.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK (INTEREST).

Mr. GOULD: 77.
asked the Prime Minister if he will take steps to increase the interest paid by the Post Office Savings Bank to small depositors at the earliest possible date?

Mr. BALDWIN: This matter has been frequently considered, but for the reasons given in the Report of the Committee on War Loans for Small Investors (Cd. Paper 8179) my right hon. Friend is not prepared to recommend an increase.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMISTICE (TRANSLATION OF TEXT).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 78.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the American official version of the original Armistice, Clause 19, differs from the version in the official Parliamentary Report of 11th November, and that the American text shuts out all claims for indemnities apart from reparation; and whether he will say which version is correct?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I would remind the hon. and gallant Member that the Armistice was signed in French, which alone remains the official text, the English and German versions being only translations. The English version, given to the House by the Prime Minister on 11th November last, is a full translation of the French text.

Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that British interests are not lost by translation.

Mr. BONAR LAW: We shall try to.

Oral Answers to Questions — SURPLUS GOVERNMENT PROPERTY (DISPOSAL).

Colonel BURN: 79.
asked the Prime Minister whether the necessary steps are being taken by His Majesty's Government to prevent national factories being acquired by other than British subjects?

The DEPUTY-MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): The necessary steps have been taken to prevent national factories being acquired by enemy aliens. I am referring to the Advisory Council on the disposal of Government property the further question, whether it is necessary to prevent such factories passing into the hands of other foreign subjects, whether neutral or Allied.

Oral Answers to Questions — LABOUR CONDITIONS (EDUCATIONAL PROPAGANDA).

Colonel BURN: 80.
asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government have considered the necessity of devising schemes of educational propaganda, so that employers, workpeople, and the public may appreciate the significance of the economic considerations involved before it is determined to introduce changes in labour conditions?

Mr. PARKER: I have been asked to take this question. Yes, Sir, the Government will do all in its power to bring before all concerned the economic considerations involved in any such important changes.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Am I to understand that that agitation is to be carried on with public money?

Mr. PARKER: The hon. and gallant Member had better put that to the Leader of the House.

Mr. WATERSON: Are we to understand that the old War Aims Committee have been called together for this purpose? May I ask respectfully for a reply to the question?

Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member attaches importance to his question he should put it down. The rule is that Ministers should be given an opportunity of considering a question.

Mr. WATERSON: I will give notice that I will put the question down a week to-day.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not necessary. If the hon. Member hands the question in, that is all that is required.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE (GOVERNMENT CONTROL).

Mr. SAMUEL SAMUEL: 82.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can at an early date abolish the Government control of trade so far as imports and exports are concerned with a view to develop the industries and to cheapen the coat of food and to find employment for the men as they are demobilised?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. The whole matter has been receiving careful consideration for some time, and is now being specially examined under Cabinet direction.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL MINERS (COMMITTEE OF INVESTIGATION).

Mr. KENNEDY JONES: 83.
asked the Prime Minister whether, as the Coal Committee of investigation to be set up will not report before the 31st March and the miners' strike is timed for the 15th March, he will, in the event of the ballot being in favour of a strike, ask the Committee for an interim Report as to wages find hours?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The Committee will be asked to proceed with its inquiry with all possible speed, and to present interim reports, particularly as regards wages and hours, but it is feared that such a report could not be presented by the middle of March.

Mr. JONES: Is there an understanding between the miners' executive and the Government that the strike will be postponed until these reports are received?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I wish I could give an affirmative answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF LABOUR.

Mr. GRATTAN DOYLE: 84.
asked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the special labour difficulties which have arisen in respect to coal mines and transport, His Majesty's Government intends to make provision so that all labour questions may be brought under the direct administration of a single Ministry?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It is the policy of the Government that all these questions should be dealt with by the Ministry of Labour.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEMBERS' SALARIES.

Colonel GRETTON: asked the Prime Minister if the payment of salaries of £400 a year to Members of the House of Commons will be continued during the present Parliament; and, if so, will proposals for enabling payment to be made be laid before the House of Commons?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, provision will be made, as usual, in the House of Commons Vote.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR.

Viscount WOLMER: 86.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government has been furnished with a list of Turkish officers and others who have been responsible for the brutal treatment of British prisoners of war in Turkish hands; whether he can say how many names there are upon this list; and what steps, if any, have been taken to secure the arrest of the individuals concerned with a view to their being brought to trial?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot add anything to the replies which I have given on this subject, and to what the Prime Minister said on the 12th of February, but what has been said on this subject applies to Turkey as well as to Germany.

Lieutenant-Colonel Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Do the Government intend to exact from Turkey compensation for the injuries done to prisoners, and also compensation to the relatives of prisoners who have died?

Mr. BONAR LAW: That really is part of the general question. We shall exact whatever we can get from Turkey, as well as from our other enemies.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR RAIDS (DAMAGE TO PUBLIC WORKS).

Mr. CROOKS: 90.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is aware that local authorities have made application to the
Treasury for reimbursement of expenses incurred in repairing damage to public works and sewers by hostile aircraft; that the Treasury have refused to accede to this demand; and whether, in view of the fact that this damage was a matter of national concern, he will have the question reconsidered?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot add anything to the answer which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for South-West St. Pancras on the 6th of November last, when I stated that the subject had again been considered by the Government, and that we did not think it would be right to transfer this expenditure from the local authorities to the Treasury.

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX.

Colonel YATE: 91.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Income Tax is to be deducted from the war gratuities paid to officers and men on demobilisation, and on what grounds?

Mr. BALDWIN: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which I gave on Thursday last to questions on this subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — EXCESS PROFITS.

Captain SHAW: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government still view the Excess Profits Duty as a purely war measure; and if he can promise that this duty will be withdrawn at an early date after peace has been signed?

Mr. BALDWIN: My right hon. Friend agrees with his predecessors that the present Excess Profits Duty is not suited to be a part of our permanent post-war system of taxation.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: 95.
asked whether the Government will abolish the present exceptions to liability to Excess Profits Duty, so that all profits shall be brought within the charge?

Mr. BALDWIN: The scope of the Excess Profits Duty has been determined by Parliament after full discussion, and it is not possible for me to deal adequately with separate aspects of the duty by way of question and answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — MILITARY SERVICE.

OFFICER INTERPRETERS (GRATUITIES).

Lieutenant-Colonel Sir SAMUEL HOARE: 96.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will reconsider the former decision that excludes officer interpreters at prisoner of war camps from gratuities, and authorise them to receive gratuities at the end of their service upon the same basis as other officers?

Mr. CHURCHILL: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given on Monday last to a question on this subject put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Durham, which was to the effect that the case of these interpreters would be considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — CAPITAL ISSUES COMMITTEE (RECONSTITUTION).

Viscount WOLMER: 97.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is yet able to make a statement in regard to the future of the Capital Issues Committee of the Treasury?

Lieutenant-Colonel WEIGALL: 99.
asked whether the restrictions now placed on new issues of capital are to be relaxed; and, if so, in what direction?

Sir S. SAMUEL: 101.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when it is proposed to make a statement regarding the Capital Issues Committee; and whether he will consider the possibility of abolishing all interference with the public freedom, so as to develop freely the industries of the country.

Mr. BALDWIN: The Reconstruction Committees on Currency and on Financial Facilities have advised that it is not possible under existing financial conditions, to dispense altogether with the control of capital issues, and my right hon. Friend has come to the conclusion that it is necessary, at any rate for the present, to continue this control in a modified form. It is imperative during the reconstruction period to preserve for undertakings which are essential for the speedy restoration of commerce and industry, and the development of public utility services, an adequate share of the capital which is available for investment, and to prevent any avoidable drain upon the foreign exchanges.
A Regulation under the Defence of the Realm Act will accordingly be made forthwith, prohibiting fresh issues, except under licence.
The enlargement of the purpose for which it will be proper to allow fresh issues may be expected to result in a great increase in the number of applications, and it has been represented to me that in the interests of applicants there should be machinery for allowing them to state their cases orally before the Committee, if they desire to do so, before any decision adverse to the application is arrived at. My right hon. Friend has, therefore, decided to reconstitute and extend the Capital Issues Committee. The new terms of reference are as follows:
To consider and advise upon applications received by the Treasury for licences under the Defence of the Realm Regulations for fresh issues of capital, with a view to preserving capital during the reconstruction period for essential undertakings in the United Kingdom, and to preventing any avoidable drain upon foreign exchanges by the export of capital, except where it is shown to the satisfaction of the Treasury that special circumstances exist.
It will be an instruction to the Committee that, in order that applications may be speedily dealt with and to enable oral evidence to be given in support of them, when desired by the applicant, that the Committee should sit by panels, consisting of three members, the decision of the panels to be subject to confirmation by the full Committee.
Lord Cunliffe has consented to act as Chairman of the new Committee, and further names will be announced in due course.

Viscount WOLMER: Can my hon. Friend say when this Committee will be set up?

Mr. BALDWIN: As soon as possible.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether instructions will be issued to this Committee not to interfere unless in cases where the public are being asked to subscribe money?

Mr. BALDWIN: I think the terms of reference are pretty comprehensive.

Mr. MacVEAGH: That is not an answer to my question. They may be pretty comprehensive and pretty confused. I ask, Will this Committee be told that they are not to interfere except where the public are being asked to subscribe money?

Mr. BALDWIN: I think the instructions to the Committee, which I have read, will be such as will meet the case. I can assure my hon. Friend, if he will read the terms of reference a second time, he will see light.

Viscount WOLMER: Will the Stock Exchange Committee be represented on that Committee?

Mr. BALDWIN: I cannot say that, but I am very glad to make the Noble Lord acquainted with the fact that the Stock Exchange are in full accord with what has been done. Now that I have the opportunity, I should like to pay a tribute to the Stock Exchange for the loyalty with which they have supported the Government during the whole period of the War in regard to this matter of the issue of capital.

An HON. MEMBER: Will there be any new restrictions on the issue of shares for considerations other than cash?

Mr. BALDWIN: I am afraid I cannot answer that question without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS (FRIDAYS).

Colonel BURN (by Private Notice): asked the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House whether questions down on the Order Paper on Fridays will, during the Session, be answered by Ministers?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It has always been the custom that Ministers should not be expected to answer questions on Friday, for reasons which will be obvious to hon. Members. That custom will be adopted in the present Session.

Sir F. HALL: In view of the increased number of Members in the House and the large number of questions that come on the Paper every day, could not the Government give still further time for questions, say, instead of finishing at a quarter to four, to go on till four o'clock?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I think we should wait a little longer before seriously considering that. There are always a great many more questions at the beginning of the Session than when the steam of the Members has evaporated.

Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon Gentleman say what are the obvious reasons for not answering questions on Friday?

Mr. BONAR LAW: If I did not think them obvious I should not have used that term. The House meets at twelve o'clock. The questions answered on Friday are those of which notice is given on Thursday—one day. There is little time to get the answers ready in the ordinary course, and to expect them to be ready by noon when Ministers have to be otherwise engaged is really a great hardship that the House should appreciate.

Mr. DEVLIN: If notice of a question is given on Wednesday is there any reason why there should not be an answer on Friday?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Questions could be answered in that case, but the hon. Member knows that Ministers have a great deal of work to do in their Departments. Surely under the circumstances it is too much to ask them to come down at twelve o'clock!

Mr. DEVLIN: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that these answers are not written by Ministers at all, but by clerks in the Departments?

Mr. BONAR LAW: That shows how little some hon. Members know about the matter. Answers to questions make up a considerable part of my labours.

Colonel GREIG: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether a Committee of this House, on investigation, found that every question put involved the cost of a guinea to the State?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I know it is something like that; but I know also, in spite of what the hon. Member has said, that it is a very heavy tax on Ministers. For all that, it is one of the valuable privileges of the House of Commons to ask questions, and I should be very sorry to see it stopped.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.

Ordered, That the Committee do consist of Fifteen Members:

Committee accordingly nominated of Mr. Acland, Mr. Baldwin, Sir William Barton, Major Blair, Sir Hildred Carlile, Sir Henry Craik, Mr. Alfred Davies, Sir David Davies, Sir Charles Henry, Mr. Holmes, Mr. Lonsdale, Mr. Neil M'Lean, Mr. Walsh, Sir Robert Williams and Lieutenant-Commander Hilton Young.

Ordered, That the Committee have power to send, for persons, papers, and records:

Ordered, That Five be the quorum.—[Colonel Gibbs.]

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: Can the Leader of the House tell us what the business is likely to be next week?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I should be glad if my right hon. Friend would repeat his question to-morrow.

Ordered, That other Government Business have precedence this day of the Business of Supply.—[Lord Edmund Talbot.]

Orders of the Day — PROCEDURE RULES.

GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS.

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [19th February.]

"That, in respect of any Motion or any Bill under consideration either in Committee of the Whole House or on Report Mr. Speaker, or in Committee the Chairman of Ways and Means, and the Deputy-Chairman, shall have power to select the new Clauses or Amendments to be proposed, and may, if he thinks fit, ask any Member who has given notice of an Amendment to give such explanation of the object of the Amendment as may enable him to form a judgment upon it."—[Sir G. Hewart.]

Question again proposed.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move, after the word "shall," to insert the words,
after consultation with a Committee of not less than ten Members of the House selected by Mr. Speaker.
I hope that this Amendment will commend itself to the Leader of the House and also to the House itself. Its object is that it shall be a rule in the future that there shall be a small Committee, selected by Mr. Speaker himself, which shall be able to consult with Mr. Speaker in regard to the selection of Amendments on the Report stage. I should like to point out that this suggestion is only really an extension of a practice which has been going on for a good many years in regard to legislation in Committee of this House. My suggestion is only to extend the practice that has has been going on during recent years to the Report stage. I think I shall carry the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) with me when I say that during the last few years it has always been the practice of private Mem-
bers to consult together in the room of the Deputy-Chairman or the Chairman of Ways and Means on a great many Bills in regard to the Amendments which were going to be taken. They were thoroughly informal meetings. Members were invited to attend in the room of the Deputy-Chairman or the Chairman of Ways and Means, and it did really lead to this, that when Amendments were selected from the Chair everybody felt that consideration had been given to that selection by a great many private Members of the House. This suggestion is merely to extend that practice to the Report stage, when Mr. Speaker will be the authority selecting the Amendments.
I believe that it will be very much in the interests of the Chair that the Chairman should be able to consult, say, not less than ten private Member of the House before Amendments are selected for Debate. Mr. Speaker will be able to select private Members from the various parties of the House whom he knows attend pretty regularly and take an interest in special Bills, and the result will be, when they are selected, private Members will feel that full consideration has been given to them. If I may say so—and I think this is really the strong point—the high authorities who are going to select Amendments in the future do not want this great responsibility thrust upon them. I will give a quotation from the evidence given by you, Mr. Speaker, before the Committee on Procedure in 1914, when you were asked whether you would be in favour of giving to yourself or the Chairman the power of selecting Amendments and to make the Kangaroo Closure a permanent part of the Standing Order. Your reply was:
I agree to that, but very reluctantly. It is a mistake to give too much power to either the Speaker or the Chairman. He has got quite sufficient responsibility already, and it is a mistake to make him too powerful a factor in the general discussions of the House".
That was stated in answer to a question a few years ago before a very important Committee on Procedure. In addition to that, I may mention that the Chairman of Ways and Means is also very reluctant indeed to have this very drastic power of selecting Amendments thrust upon him as a normal part of the Procedure, because in the same Committee the Chairman of Ways and Means only agreed that he would be willing to have such a power in cases where Bills had
gone through a kind of double procedure. He explained that, supposing a Bill had gone before an Investigation Committee in one Session, and that it had then gone to the next Session before a Standing Committee upstairs, he agreed that after that double and very searching analysis he would be content to agree to this procedure of the Kangaroo Closure. His words were:
I suggest that in the case of Bills which had gone through this double ordeal of investigation that power of selection should be given.
I think it is quite clear that the high authorities themselves who are being asked to agree to this selection of Amendments under this Resolution do not want to have this power thrust upon them. I do not know whether it will appeal to hon. Members below the Gangway, but there was another very high authority who gave evidence before the same Committee—I refer to the late Prime Minister, who said, in answer to a question that was put to him, that he was very much in favour of a Committee of this kind, and he called it a Business Committee. He said:
I think I have already said I am in favour of the setting up of a Business Committee to which should be referred the allocation of the time both for the whole and various stages of any Bills of complexity or importance, which I think would be a great improvement on our present system of Ministerial guillotine, and the development of what is about to be called the Kargaroo Closure.
In conclusion, I should not have been presumptuous enough to put down an Amendment of this kind out of my own head; it is not my invention, and I only put it down after reading the evidence that the authorities in the House did not want to have this power, and this view is backed up by persons who have had great experience of Parliamentary proceedings. I think if we had an Amendment like the one I am moving it would create much more confidence in private Members all over the House if such a selection of Amendments took place, and it would very much ease our Parliament machine.

Mr. RAPER: I beg to second the Amendment.

4.0 p.m.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Perhaps it may assist the House if I give an account of my experience on the point to which my hon. Friend has referred. After my own experience, and after hearing every word of the Debate on this particular proposal, I am led to the conclusion that an Amend-
ment of this kind will not assist the Speaker, the Chairman, or the Deputy-Chairman in the exercise of this very difficult task. My hon. Friend has quite correctly stated what used to happen. It was of very great assistance to the Chairman of Ways and Means, as I happen to know, but the informality of it was the essence of its use. Private Members used to come in and talk over the Amendments on the Paper, but they were in no sense able to control the putting down of manuscript Amendments, and in practice, as far as the Committee stage was concerned, the Chairman of Ways and Means scarcely ever went beyond two or three selected Amendments. Of course, experience taught him that in the course of the Debate the Amendments that he had thought of selecting became not nearly so important as he had thought them at the time. Over and over again that happened. Amendments which he had thought of selecting were dropped in favour of other Amendments, or, indeed, of manuscript Amendments which more met the uses of Debate and the convenience of hon. Members. There is a difficulty which would confront either Mr. Speaker or the Chairman of Ways and Means in having a Committee of ten. You could not always get them, or, indeed, any of them, because Amendments are put down right up to the very last moment of the sitting of the House. Very often they are most important Amendments, arising out of the Debate which stopped at eleven o'clock the previous night. What is he to do under the suggested machinery? Very often we have sat after twelve, and somethines one o'clock, and, being only human—I have suffered from long sittings as much as any Member—he is very tired, and next day he has other business in connection with private legislation. The duties discharged by the Chairman of Ways and Means and his Deputy are very much more numerous than the ordinary Member has any idea of. He would have to summon one or two of the Committee of ten. Theoretically it sounds almost perfect, but in practice it would break down and would not work. I have had a good deal of experience. The big Bills to which reference has been made were, of course, very educative, to put it mildly, and, collating all the experience that I have had, and listening to every word of the Debate, I can come to no other conclusion than that the Resolution as it stands is by far
the most effective way of meeting the real wishes of the House, and that is to give sufficient power to the Chair to cut down useless and unnecessary debate and to expedite business.

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I am going to ask my hon. Friend not to press this Amendment, but after the short speech to which we have just listened I shall not give any reasons, because the reasons advanced by the right hon. Gentleman opposite seem to me quite conclusive.
Amendment negatived.

Lieutenant-Colonel W. GUINNESS: I beg to move, to leave out the words
and may, if he thinks fit, ask any Member who has given noticed of an Amendment to give such explanation of the object of the Amendment as may enable him to form a judgment upon it,
and to insert instead thereof the words
but shall, before deciding not to select any Amendment, call on a Member who has given notice to rise in his plate and give an explanation such Amendment. Such explanation shall be limited to ten minutes.
The object of my Amendment is to ensure that Amendments will not be ruled out by you or by the Chairman under the action of the Kangaroo Closure before their full scope and object has been understood. I do not think anyone in the House quarrels with the legitimate wish of the Government to prevent time being wasted by frivolous and trifling Amendments. My Amendment, however, while allowing that object to be attained, will secure that reasonable Amendments raising substantial points shall receive discussion. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) gave us a very strong reason for this Amendment. He gave us a moving picture of the fatigue which results from the strenuous efforts of the Chairman of Committees in following the business of a long Sitting and having to tackle a long list of Amendments again the next morning. I do not think any man can really think out for himself what the Amendments involve and what their real scope is until he has heard them argued, and, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, it is very hard on the Chairman of Committees to be expected to do it for himself in a morning before the Sitting takes place. It is proposed by the Government that you or the Chairman of Committees shall be able to call on a Member who wishes to move an Amend-
ment for an explanation of his object. This, however, is in no sense compulsory, and I do not see that it is a very satisfactory arrangement. One knows what it means. One goes up to the Table. The Chairman of Committees is listening to the Debate and perhaps there are continual interruptions. He can only listen to the explanation of the Member with one ear while with the other ear he listens to the Debate. No private explanation of that character at the Table can enable the Chairman of Committees to gauge the feeling of the House or to judge whether the Amendment is really of sufficient substance to deserve to be discussed.
This Amendment would do away with a good deal of the danger of the Chair, unconsciously perhaps, helping the Government out of a difficulty. I venture again to mention the case which I mentioned in the general discussion the other night, the case of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) who when a few months ago the question of Irish Conscription was under discussion had down an Amendment to substitute the word "shall" for "may." That was an Amendment which no one could say was unimportant. It was a vital Amendment, but probably owing to pressure of work the Chairman of Committees did not call upon the right hon. Gentleman. That was most unfortunate, and it caused a good deal of sore feeling. It is only by allowing all these Amendments to be ventilated in a speech of ten minutes that you can prevent the possibility of this kind of soreness and the suspicion in future that the Chair is tempted to shorten discussion and to help the Government out of an awkward hole. If the Government would accept this Amendment, they would do something to allay the anxiety which many of us feel that our cherished rights of free speech are being destroyed. The Government has long enjoyed the advantage of putting business through what is practically a gagged House of Commons where no speech is allowed except with the Government's approval. They now want the gag to fit even closer and to knock out our few remaining teeth so that not even a throttled groan can escape without their consent. No doubt it is very convenient for the Government, but it is not expedient in the wider national interest.
The House already has lost a great deal of respect, because, as the public alleges, of a great lack of criticism. It is not that
we do not want to criticise, but that we never get the chance. It is very dangerous to suppress reasonable opportunities for the expression of different classes of opinion. It is much better that we should have unsound opinions brought forward in this House and it is much better to have inflammatory proposals advocated here than in Trafalgar Square, where they are very much more difficult to answer. The Government yesterday, unfortunately, met the appeal for modifications in their proposals in a very uncompromising spirit. By their refusal to pass these Amendments as Sessional Orders they definitely make them permanent, and we are saddled with them for all eternity. New Members who were so very accommodating yesterday probably did not realise that by allowing these Amendments to become permanent Standing Orders they have shut them out of their control for ever. We shall never get another chance of reconsidering them, and we all know that the whole trend of development in this House is to destroy the liberty of the private Member and never to increase it. I do beg of the Government to accept this small Amendment. It would take up very little time, and it would, I think, improve the good temper of minorities in this House and remove their sense of injustice. By its acceptance the Government would give some earnest that their real object is the legitimate one of expediting business and not that of throttling free and legitimate criticism.

Captain STANLEY WILSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
There is little left for me to say after the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend, but I should like to remind the Government that they are proposing to make the Kangaroo Closure permanent, and I do appeal to them not to go too far. The object of the Amendment is solely to safeguard the interests of private Members of this House. I can assure new Members that there are very few opportunities left to private Members, especially if these new Rules are to be finally passed into law. It is a very small request to ask the Government to allow a Member to explain his Amendment to Mr. Speaker or the Chairman, and I do trust that the Government will see their way to meet us upon this occasion. They have refused us everything up to the present,
but I hope upon this occasion that they will be able to give us a little bit of help and look after the interests of private Members.

Sir E. CARSON: There is a great deal of importance in the proposal of my hon. and gallant Friend. It is quite true that we cannot go on as we are if we are to get any business through the House at all, and I quite recognise the difficulty of the Government in framing what I may call a popular Order, an Order that will be popular with the Members of the House. May I remind the House and those who severely criticise this proposal, as my hon. and gallant Friend did, that I myself for many years sat in the most heated political time under both Closure by Compartment and the Kangaroo Closure, and I am not at all sure that Closure by Compartment is not the most tyrannic. When complaint is made that opportunities are going to be taken away of discussing Amendments, it must not be forgotten that, for many years, we have been accustomed to have the Government, shortly after a Bill has gone into Committee, come down and declare that, upon a special day, after a very short interval from the Motion being made, either the whole or the greater part of the Bill must be taken practically without any discussion at all. That is an impossible situation, and involves that a great many parts of the Bill are never discussed. No regard is paid to the relative importance of the Amendments putdown, and, so far as I am concerned, I know nothing more tyrannical and nothing more calculated to lead to bad work in this House than Closure by Compartment. I think, therefore, the Government are perfectly right in trying to make some improvement which will enable us to see that the whole of the Bill, and particularly its more important Clauses, are discussed. I understand that that is the object of this Amendment—to try and secure a real discussion.
Let us put away from ourselves the idea that we are giving up certain liberties. We never had them. In the twenty-six or twenty-seven years I have been in this House there has been a growing tendency on the part of every Government to find the most convenient way of getting rid of discussion. The practice has been to come and say, "Here is a time table; you can discuss the most unimportant Amendments and waste the time in any way you like, but at eleven o'clock on Wednesday
forty Clauses must be put to the House, even although you have only discussed one, and on a later day twenty Clauses more must be voted upon." That took away far more liberty from the House than this proposal of the Government does. There is another objection raised by my hon. and gallant Friend. He says that this change will be permanent. I hope the mind of the House will not be affected by that kind of argument. It can always, if a Standing Order does not turn out well or work properly, change it. It is, therefore, ridiculous to say that the Order is permanent. There are methods, as we all know—at any rate, as I know—of putting pressure on the Government. After all, the Government, whatever may be their sins, and I dare say they are many, want to do one thing, and that is to try and get the business through. I do not think it would be very difficult to prove to them that the House is dissatisfied with their methods when trying to get work through. I am, therefore, not really frightened by the idea of this being a permanent change.
Having worked under these various kinds of Closure, the one thing we ought to try and prevent is the creation of irritation in the minds of Members with regard to the Chair. I believe that should be the essence of our procedure. I think I could show the Government there is some defect in their proposal. Unless some alteration is made in this Order, a Member may be sitting here the whole day waiting for his Amendment to come on. He may have made considerable research and have gone to a good deal of trouble in preparing speeches in support of the Amendment which he thinks to be important, but, having waited for it to come on, probably at great inconvenience to himself, when it is reached he may find the Chair will pass it by and call on another Amendment. Naturally the hon. Member will feel sorely aggrieved. We cannot always during political struggles profess to possess the judicial temperament, and I do believe that in this way there may be a cause of irritation in the minds of many Members. Might there not be some way of letting a Member know if his Amendment is not going to be called. I know the Chairman of Committees very frequently asks Members to come round and explain to him their Amendments. That is one of those courtesies which tend to preserve good relations in the House, but I feel perfectly certain that some-
thing of the kind is desirable. I would have preferred, instead of this Amendment, the Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Colonel Wedgwood), which would leave it to the Speaker to ask the Member as to the meaning of his Amendment. I should also like to see, at all events, the practice adopted of the Member being informed at the earliest possible moment that his Amendment cannot be called. In that way I think it will take away a good deal of the irritation. So far as I am concerned, I am very anxious that the Rules should be made as drastic as possible. I do not believe we are going to lose anything, because the Government have always had it in their power to propose the Closure, and the system of Closure set up in this Order is certainly far better than the present system.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Gordon Hewart): I cannot help thinking that my hon. and gallant Friend who moved this Amendment has failed to realise what the consequences would be if we accept it. The Amendment is in its form imperative. It takes away from the Chair all discretion. It provides that in every case where an Amendment is not going to be moved in the ordinary way the Member responsible for it shall, in any event, have a period up to ten minutes in order to explain it. Is it not obvious that even the least ingenious artist in Parliamentary obstruction, if the Amendment were accepted, would be able to prevent the passing of any Bill. The Amendment might form the subject-matter of the first chapter in any little handbook that might be written under the title of "The A B C of Parliamentary Obstruction." There is another defect in the suggestion to which I should like to draw attention. It provides that the Speaker must call upon anyone of the Members in whose name an Amendment stands before he decides that it is not to be a selected Amendment, and there is to be a speech up to ten minutes in order to explain the object of it. Yet he might really have decided to select it. With regard to the permanence of the proposal, these Orders remain in force until such time as the House may otherwise direct. It is always in the power of the House to consider the matter. Our object, of course, is to get business done, and we had the choice of two evils. The
House has heard from a voice which speaks with the greatest experience that this is of all forms of Closure the least tyrannical in its operation and the most efficacious in its results. Closure by compartments is far worse, and at the same time it is less effective for the real object in view. It is asked that steps should be taken not only to secure the discussion of important Amendments, but to prevent any feeling of irritation being created in the minds of Members. I am told that the practical suggestion to that effect really amounts to no more than that which is already regularly done. It is now the practice for Mr. Speaker or the Chairman, as the case may be, when a selection of Amendments is about to be made, to take steps to communicate with the hon. Members in whose names they stand, and, after conversation with them, to give timely warning of what is about to take place. There is no need, therefore, to contemplate such a hard case as that of an hon. Member who may have devoted a considerble amount of time and trouble in the preparation of his subject sitting here for several hours expecting his Amendment to come on, and then finding himself disappointed by seeing it passed over. But even if that were to occur it would be the lesser of two evils, the other evil being that any time up to ten minutes should have to be set apart for an explanation of an Amendment which ex hypothesi is not to be selected. This cause of irritation is not likely to arise, for the reason that the Chair is careful to avoid anything of the kind. In these circumstances a choice having to be made between different kinds of Closure, and this kind having been justified by experience, I do ask the hon. and gallant Member to withdraw his Amendment.

Sir JOHN BUTCHER: I am entirely in favour of the principle underlying this Amendment, although I would prefer that which has the same object in view, and which stands in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). My vote on this Amendment will be determined largely by the question whether the Government will accept this later Amendment standing on the Paper. The learned Attorney-General has told us that the practice is for the person occupying the Chair to ask the hon. Member who has given notice of an Amendment for an explanation of it if it is not going to be called on. The ob-
ject of this Amendment is to make sure that that practice shall be carried out instead of leaving it in each case to the discretion of the Chair. I do see an objection to five minutes' explanation being given on every Amendment during the course of the Debate. I was very much impressed by what my hon. and gallant Friend said when he drew our attention to the fact that this is to be a permanent alteration of Standing Oders. If there is permanency in Standing Orders it is almost impossible for a private Member to get them altered as any proposal to alter them must come from the Government of the day. See how that operates. If the Standing Order is too stringent—I mean in the interests of the private Member, not in the interests of the Government—is it likely that the Government will propose an Amendment restoring the rights of the private Member and cutting down the autocratic rights the Government have acquired? It is extremely improbable. If, on the other hand, the Standing Order is not sufficiently stringent to achieve the object of the Government, it is quite certain that the Government will come back to the House and ask for more stringency, and if they make out a case for it they will get it. When we are placing upon our Standing Orders, I do not say this unnecessary but this very important restriction upon the rights hitherto enjoyed by private Members, we should not make the restriction too stringent in the first instance. Let us see how it works before we do that. If, after a certain time, it is found not to be sufficiently stringent, I am sure the House will give the additional powers, but in the first instance I hope the Government will make the comparatively small relaxation, asked for by the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), and will not cause, as they otherwise undoubtedly would cause, that irritation referred to by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Duncairn Division of Belfast (Sir E. Carson) in the minds of private Members when they feel that their rights are being unduly curtailed.

Sir F. BANBURY: May I point out to my hon. and learned Friend (Sir J. Butcher) that the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) is practically what is contained in the present Amendment?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: No!

Sir F. BANBURY: Yes! I have never put down an Amendment which has been rejected without the Chairman of Ways and Means or Mr. Speaker listening to me when I have put my views before them. What my hon. and learned Friend does not quite realise is that it is one thing to go to a Chairman—I do not attempt to make the slightest attack on the Chair; I do not know whether my hon. and learned Friend has even been in the Chair, I have on one or two occasions—who probably has already made up his mind to reject an Amendment after he has looked at it in his room, and quite another thing for a Chairman to try to listen to an hon. Member explain to him his Amendment while he is listening to the speech, say, of my hon. and learned Friend. In the latter case, an hon. Member does not get a fair chance when he endeavours to explain his position on an Amendment to the Chair. Supposing the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend (Lieutenant-Colonel W. Guinness) is carried, see what advantage would ensue! The House would know what the Amendment is, the House would know the arguments for it, and if then the Chairman refused to accept the Amendment, the House would be able to express an opinion as to whether that rejection was justified. Because we have had excellent Chairmen in the past, it does not follow that we are always going to have excellent Chairmen in the future, and this proposal, if carried, would, if the Chairman were inclined to accept pressure from the Government, exercise a salutary effect upon him when he came to decide whether or not an Amendment should be entertained. I understood the Attorney-General to say—it is a little difficult to hear him from the Back Bench below the Gangway, therefore I apologise if I did not quite catch the words of wisdom my right hon. and learned Friend spoke to the House—that one result of the Amendment would be that every Amendment would have to be discussed for ten minutes.

Sir G. HEWART: It might be.

Sir F. BANBURY: Then the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not read the Amendment. That is just what I thought. The Amendment says that the Chairman
shall, before deciding not to select any Amendment.
Therefore, the effect would be that an Amendment would be moved unless the Chairman gave notice to the Member moving it that he did not intend to accept it.
If that is not carried out by this Amendment, if the Government will bring in another which will carry that out, I am authorised by my hon. and gallant Friend to say that the will accept it. One word upon the question whether these Rules are going to be permanent. My right hon. and learned Friend (Sir E. Carson)—I am sorry he has gone out of the House—says, "Oh, no! new Members need not be afraid that these Rules are going to be permanent, because you can—or, at least, I can—put pressure upon the Government." We are not all in that fortunate position. The ordinary private Member is not in a position to put any pressure upon the Government. He approaches the Government in fear and trembling, and the Government would probably say to him, as was once described by the right hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Crooks), "Good afternoon; mind the step. It is a nice evening." That is all the ordinary Member will get out of the Government. I know that from my own experience. These new Rules will be permanent. My right hon. and learned Friend (Sir E. Carson) said quite rightly that this proposal is much better than Closure by compartments, but do not let the House forget that in a very short time we are going to have the most drastic Closure by compartments that has ever been brought before this House. I should like to know whether this Amendment is going to be accepted, or, if it is rejected, what will happen to the proposal standing next but one on the Paper? Perhaps the Government will give us some enlightenment on that subject?

Sir TUDOR WALTERS: Before the Leader of the House replies I should like to say two or three words in support of the Amendment. As an old Member of this House I begin to think that when I come down here I shall find myself completely at a loss to know what is the procedure of the House, what I can do and what I cannot do. When I come down from Yorkshire some Monday afternoon I shall suddenly discover that the House is empty and that everybody is being sent off to various Standing Committees upstairs.

Mr. SPEAKER: We are not discussing that matter now. The hon. Member must confine himself to the Amendment

Sir T. WALTERS: With all respect, Mr. Speaker, that was a preliminary remark to the argument I have to offer. My next point is that when I come to propose an
Amendment I have put down on the Order Paper, I shall find I shall not be called upon to do so because I have not beforehand privately discussed the matter with Mr. Speaker or the Chairman of the Committee. That is filching the privileges of Members of this House to a degree which is not to be tolerated. I therefore support the Amendment. I do so also for this reason: I have the greatest possible respect for Mr. Speaker, the Chairman of Ways and Means and the various occupants of the Chair, but that does not lead me to feel at all disposed to go to any of those gentlemen and privately prove to them that the Amendment I have to offer is one I can justify to them in private personal argument. With great respect to the occupants of the Chair, I say that the House of Commons only is the tribunal to whom I should address my arguments. With all respect to the Attorney-General, I do not think the explanation he gave is at all satisfactory. Limit the time you give us as much as you like—the Government has power to do that—but allow us who are Members of this House to decide on the arguments whether they be sufficient for accepting or rejecting an Amendment, and do not constantly refer us to various officials and various controversies and debates in private, because these are matters which should be discussed in the House. I shall most certainly vote for the Amendment if it goes to a Division, and I shall resist this and all other attempts to deprive the House of Commons of a reasonable latitude in carrying on the business of the House.

Mr. FRANCE: I support the Amendment very heartily. I would call the attention of the Attorney-General to the effect of this Amendment upon the position he described in regard to an Amendment yesterday, when he said it was practically impossible to ascertain the view of the House upon an Amendment. It was suggested by the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) that if the general sense of the House was in favour of an Amendment being discussed, that might be a guide, and the Attorney-General asked how we were to ascertain that vague and indeterminate thing "the sense of the House." I suggest to him that this is a practical way of ascertaining that sense. It has already been indicated by the hon.
Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) that the wording of the Amendment is not regarded as a matter of verbal inspiration by the Mover, or the actual time, but there is a great deal to be said, as the last speaker has emphasised, in favour of the view that addressing arguments to the Chair in the hearing of the House is a very different thing from an opportunity of speaking to Mr. Speaker or to the Chairman, however willing they may be, as I wish to testify they always have been, and however anxious they are to listen to those arguments. This Amendment proposes a very real way of ascertaining the feeling and sense of the House. I would suggest to the Government that they should really try to meet the feeling of private Members in this matter. We make these suggestions not with a view to hindering their proposals, but to make them more practicable and to giving assistance to Mr. Speaker and the Chairman in their very difficult and invidious task. I suggest that the wording of the Amendment might be altered to make it read, "Any Member giving notice to Mr. Speaker that he desires to explain to the House the reason of his Amendment should have an opportunity of doing so." In that way a private Member would, in a sense, have an appeal to the House and be able to explain his position and the House might, and I am sure quickly would, show its sense whether or not it was giving its support to the impartial decision on the part of Mr. Speaker, and giving him its support by its consciousness of the reality or emptiness of the Amendment to be proposed. I therefore strongly urge that the Government should take this opportunity, not necessarily by following these words, of giving private Members a sense that their rights are not further being taken from them.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I must apologise to my hon. Friends who have supported this Amendment for having put my Amendment on the Paper, because the Amendment which has been moved is infinitely preferable to my own. I only put down my own because in spite of what has been said from the Front Bench and by the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) I cannot recollect a single occasion on which I have been asked to explain either the good or the bad reasons for putting down Amendments which were
"kangarooed." If the hon. Baronet has had those opportunities, it is probably due to the admirable way in which he puts his Amendments. These Rules certainly are permanent. No one knows better than the Prime Minister that once they are passed we shall not be able to bring any pressure to bear on any subsequent Government. This is not a permanent Government. In five years time we shall probably have a Labour Government and we shall have, perhaps, Mr. Philip Snowden sitting in that Chair, and hon. Members who are going to support the Government in this Division will wish they had not destroyed the liberties of private Members and allowed the whole of the Report stage to be "kangarooed" in this ruthless fashion. This Kangaroo Closure has been used in the past in only extreme cases where opposition has developed and has become obstructive. It has been used on one or two Bills in the course of a year. It has been used very rarely indeed in Committee upstairs. I think I can only recollect one occasion.
But directly it becomes part of the Standing Orders it moans that on every Bill that comes here for Report and on every Bill which goes to Committee upstairs we may have the Speaker or the Chairman accepting a ruthless Kangaroo Closure which will practically prevent discussion on the Bill as completely as did the old Closures by compartments. I certainly think if you gave the Member the right to explain the Amendment which was going to be kangarooed five minutes, which would be enough, certainly it would the enough for Committee upstairs, you would still be leaving the door open for him to gain the ear of the House and to get support for the bonâ fide nature of the Amendment in a way that you will never be able to do if you allow the Kangaroo Closure to be worked without a Member being able to explain his Amendment. I will especially appeal to Labour Members on this account because when they get into their stride and when these Bills come forward—because the Bills we are going to see will require an enormous amount of amendment in a democratic sense—we shall find the vested interests entrenched in almost every line of them, and when they come forward before the House Members will not be on the Committee which deals with the Bill. They will put their Amendments on the Paper,
provided perhaps by their trade councils or trade unions, and they will find them ruthlessly swept away without having a chance of explaining them to the House or doing their duty by the people who sent them here, and they will begin to realise that the Kangaroo Closure and the acceptance of these new Rules is a most unfortunate weapon to put into the hands of any democracy. I hope my hon. Friend will go to a Division because it is no use going on one's knees to any Government and begging it to make changes when it will not. The Government knows perfectly well that it has a majority in the Lobby. The only thing we can do is to see that, though we be only twenty, thirty or forty of us, we register our protest against this filching away of the liberty of Debate in the House.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I think the House is pretty well possessed of all the arguments which have been brought forward in favour of the Amendment and I would appeal to it now to come to a decision. Whether it takes the form of a Division or not is for hon. Members to decide. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Wedgwood) has appealed to the Labour Benches and I think he could do that with great justice. He painted a picture of this House being presided over as Prime Minister by Mr. Philip Snowden.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: In the Chair.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I thought he meant as Prime Minister. If that is the desire of hon. Members I am sure they could not get a better method of securing it than following the lead of my hon. Friend opposite and preventing this House of Commons carrying out the programme it has promised to carry out, and making it plain that by the existing system the House of Commons cannot do it. My right hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury) said he could put no pressure on the Government. He does himself great injustice. I remember very well when he and I were working together and I was leading an opposition, on nights when there was not some big subject, I used to see him in confabulation with the Whips of the Government almost every night. They were coming to him on bended knee to let them have this or that proposal in order that the business of the House might go on.

Sir F. BANBURY: Presuming my right hon. Friend's statement is quite correct, he is going to take away the very power I possess.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot admit that. My right hon. Friend has sufficient ingenuity to find some method of utilising that ingenuity. When that handbook of obstruction which has been mentioned is published, the author of it will be well advised to go to my right hon. Friend for all the subjects which are to be brought forward in it. There is a good deal of point in the speeches which have been made, but every one of them is a speech against the kangaroo proposal altogether. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite does himself great injustice. Suppose he were doing what I have seen him do and opposing a Bill for the sake of stopping it? He would admit that I have seen him engaged in that occupation. Am I paying too great a tribute to his ingenuity to say that on any subject under the sun he can put down an unlimited number of Amendments? I think not, from past experience. Whether it is five minutes or ten, if on every one of these Amendments he has the right to explain why he has moved it, you have done away with the kangaroo system altogether. The House will stand anything that has a party fight in it in the way of obstruction. This really is the point. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said the kangaroo had never been used except in extreme cases. He is entirely wrong. Whenever extreme measures are taken the kangaroo is never used. Closure by compartments is invariably used. This is the alternative to the Government of the day putting down on every Bill a Closure by Compartments Resolution and having it carried, with the result that the moment it is carried there is no further discussion of any value and the House waits for the hour of the guillotine. I really wish old Members would try to look at the facts as they are. New Members will, perhaps, take what the Government says with more favour. It is a choice of evils. If the business could be done without altering our Rules, we should be glad to do it. What we hope by making these arrangements is that there will be no more need of any Closure by compartments, that every measure will have a chance of reasonable discussion, and, in addition, that there will be so much more time available that hon. Members will have much more opportunity of discussing things which they want to discuss than is possible now. It really means that we have to decide whether we want this proposal or not. The Government thinks it absolutely es-
sential, and all these ideas of limiting it would simply have the effect of taking away its utility altogether.

Mr. FRANCE: Is it not a fact that we are to be kangarooed under this proposal and to be guillotined under a later one?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Perhaps the hon. Member will wait till we discuss that.

Mr. FRANCE: Is it not the alternative?

Mr. BONAR LAW: If the hon. Member will wait till that comes, I shall have something to say about it. May I say a word about permanency? To say it is permanent in the ordinary sense is, of course, absurd. But I admit at once that it is not likely that any Government on its own initiative will move for an alteration which makes it more difficult for it to get to its business. But if the thing were really working in the way all these speeches imply, the House would have something to say to it. It never was truer than now that the peculiar composition of this House makes it much more easy for pressure to be put on the Government than in ordinary party times. In ordinary party times the Government can rely upon its supporters. In a Parliament like this, on any question where any great principle is involved, we shall have to convince the majority of the House that what we propose is reasonable, and they would have plenty of opportunity of putting pressure on the Government. I ask the House to come to a decision on the matter and to realise, as it must, that we have to get business through, and, however much we dislike particular proposals, they, or something like them, have to be adopted if the business is to be done.

5.0 P.M.

Lord ROBERT CECIL: The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Wedgwood) said he thought there would be a Labour Government here in a very few years. I am rather disposed to agree with him, but I do not myself think there is the slightest danger of tyranny from a Labour Government. I should totally disagree with them on a great many things—perhaps more things than the hon. and gallant Gentleman would—but I do not believe there is any danger that a Labour Speaker would be unfair to a minority than that any other of my fellow countrymen would be unfair to a minority. As to the kangaroo, I agree with what my right hon. Friend has said. If we are to have any of these expedients, the kangaroo is the least objec-
tionable of them all. I also agree with him, that if he is really right in his prophecy that this will obviate guillotine by compartments, I should be glad to pay a very large price for that. There never was devised a system less satisfactory than guillotine by compartments. I hope in the future—I know it is no use to prophesy—it will not be the practice of the Government to utilise the kangaroo to reverse decisions on which they have been beaten in Standing Committee. That would destroy the whole value of Standing Committees. There is a great tendency in every Department to believe that any Amendment carried against it in Committee upstairs is fatal to the usefulness of its Bills. That belief is almost always unfounded. It is quite probable that the Amendments do not improve the Bill, but they certainly do not destroy it, and there ought to be a real understanding that the decisions of Standing Committees shall be accepted unless there is overwhelming reason to reverse them. Otherwise the usefulness of Standing Committees will soon disappear, because the great merit of Standing Committees is that you can beat the Government without causing a Ministerial crisis. That is the real reason why we get much greater freedom in Standing Committees than in the House. Apart from that, I quite agree that the kangaroo would be a useful measure. There is today, I think he will agree, a grievance about its employment at present. Old Members of the House when they have an Amendment down and the Kangaroo Clause is in force try, according to what I understand is a modern phrase, to "wangle" the Chairman of the Committee into allowing their Amendment to be put. I do not think that is a very convenient practice. I think it must be a great nuisance to the Chairman. I think it would be better that the discussion should take place across the floor of the House. At the same time I feel tremendously the force of what my right hon. Friend has said. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) is not alone in his ingenuity in opposition and it would be perfectly easy—I speak after great experience—to put down an almost unlimited number of Amendments to a Bill. It is absurd to ignore the fact that perfectly valueless Amendments are put down on a Bill and if you are to allow them to be discussed for five minutes each that is not in con-
sonance with the business arrangements of this Assembly. I quite realise that some of them ought to be discussed across the floor of the House and if the word "may" instead of I "shall" were inserted in the hon. and gallant Member's Amendment I could support it, but if he is going to make it compulsory it means that every little trifling Amendment has to be discussed in the House. That is a ridiculous proposition and I cannot support it. I do not think the Government can object to the insertion of the word "may."

Mr. BONAR LAW: That is met in our proposal.

Lord R. CECIL: There is a difference. The Government's proposal says, "May, if he thinks fit, ask any Member." Under that provision he may ask him in private, and that is not a very good plan. Where the Chair thinks that a Member is on the border-line and that it would be desirable to have an explanation, then I do not think it is unreasonable that the explanation should be given across the floor of the House in a formal way so that the House itself can judge as to the reasonableness of the decision of the Chair when that explanation has been given by the Member who knows what he intended by his Amendment. If, therefore, my right hon. Friend intends to accept this Amendment with the word "may" instead of "shall" I think it will improve the proposal.

Viscount WOLMER: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept this Amendment with the alteration suggested by the Noble Lord. I think it would provide a guarantee. We quite admit that we have to trust to the Chair to a large extent, but it must arise very often that a Member is absolutely convinced that he has got a real point to raise, but you, Mr. Speaker or the Chairman, might not be able to see it. If the Amendment was accepted with the alteration suggested you would be able to see when a Member was genuinely in earnest and was not really trying obstruction, and you could say to him, "You may raise it across the floor of the House and give your explanation and see if you can gain the sympathy of the House, and if you can gain the sympathy of the House I will let you move your Amendment." I think it is very important that the final appeal should be with the House and not with the Chair. The Chair is not the ruler of
the House but the servant of the House, and any facility that can be given to prevent a sense of injustice being felt by private Members owing to misunderstanding between them and the Chair, such as my Noble Friend has just suggested, would, I think, be a every valuable preservative of the dignities and rights of Members of this House. I therefore earnestly hope that my right hon. Friend will see his way to meet us on this, because it would be in earnest of his desire to consider the position of the poor private Members. My right hon. Friend said he remembered well when he was sitting on the benches across the floor of the House. It seems to me that he does not altogether quite remember what it is to be in opposition and not in office. Even he cannot expect to be in office all his life, and the time might come when he would be ground underneath a harrow which he has himself constructed.

Sir D. MACLEAN: There is a good deal in the suggestion of the Noble Lord that in the proposed Amendment the word "may" should be inserted instead of the word "shall." The real difference it would make in the Order would be, so far as I can reflect, what the Chairman would feel, would be that he would regard the word "shall" as mandatory that he should hear an hon. Member. If the word "may" is put in, the effect on the Chair would be this—he would feel here is an Order which contemplates that it would be desirable in the interests of the House that the Chair should hear an hon. Member who wishes to explain. The Government's proposal says, "may, if he thinks fit, ask any Member." There is not really much difference, but I think the suggestion of the Noble Lord would go a long way to meet the real feeling that lies at the root of what hon. Members say. The Order, if it was amended on the lines suggested, would read something like this: In respect of any Motion or any Bill under consideration either in Committee of the Whole House or on Report, Mr. Speaker, or in Committee the Chairman of Ways and Means, and the Deputy-Chairman, shall have power to select the new Clauses or Amendments to be proposed, but he may, before giving his decision not to select any Amendments, call on a Member who has given notice to rise in his place and give an explanation of such Amendment." I think that if it was
put in that way it would leave the power of the Chair almost as it were when dealing with real obstruction.
With respect to the question of making this mandatory, that any Member shall be allowed to give five minutes' explanation, I think that would be a mistake. I have seen that done very often when I have been in the Chair. There is nothing easier. In the future Debates in this House on any measure to which I and those who will be associated with me strongly object, I frankly say that there would be nothing easier than for us to put down a whole string of Amendments and to get, say, eight or ten or fifteen Members to speak five minutes on each Amendment. There would be an hour and a-half gone at once. It is perfectly clear that that could be done. It certainly is not my idea nor is it the idea of anyone associated with me to do otherwise than to provide such means as we can for the expediting of business. I believe that the suggestion I have made would meet the Amendment of the Government and would really carry out what the Noble Lord wants.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I believe that our proposal carries out exactly what was suggested by my Noble Friend, but if there is any doubt about it, I am quite willing to insert in my proposal after the word "may" the words "in the course of the Debate." That would make it quite certain that he has an opportunity of asking them in the House. I am perfectly willing to make that Amendment.

Mr. FRANCE: Would the right hon. Gentleman use the words "call upon" instead of "ask"? That would make it clear that the Member was being called upon in the course of Debate and not being asked privately.

Lieutenant-Colonel GUINNESS: "In the course of the Debate" would not mean a public speech in the House.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I will alter it in this way. I will move, to leave out the word "ask" and to insert instead thereof the words "call upon."

Mr. T. WILSON: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has gone as far as he has, and I think he might have gone a little further. The Government ought to remember that under the Rules of Procedure as passed they are having a great amount of time, and they might allow hon. Mem-
bers in the House to discuss the Bills when they came from the Committees. The saving of time by referring Bills to the Committees will give Members more opportunity for carrying out their promises to the electors, and if the Government could see its way to deal more generously with the present situation I am certain that it will remove from the minds of Members certain suspicions that there is a certain bias and prejudice against certain Members on certain questions which they bring before the House. The Government would have been well advised to have tried the new new Rules of Procedure as applied to the Committees, and then, after experience of the operation of the procedure, have brought forward further Amendments if they thought they were necessary. In this Parliament the Members ought to have every possible opportunity given to them of voicing their opinions and the views of the people they represent. Therefore, I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman cannot see his way to go still further. He might, when we are dealing with Bills on the Report stage, have given more generous consideration to Members in this House and to have given greater opportunities for debate than under the Rules of Procedure.

Lieutenant-Colonel GUINNESS: By leave of the House, may I say that the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman I goes some distance to meet it, but I would suggest, in order that the power might be freely exercised by the Chair, that the limit of ten minutes might still be retained otherwise a Member might make a long speech, and, sooner than face that, Mr. Speaker might hesitate to give him an opportunity of rising in his place.

Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. and gallant Member withdraw his Amendment?

Lieutenant-Colonel GUINNESS: Yes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: Leave out the word "ask," and insert instead thereof the words "called upon."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]
Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
Ordered,
That, in respect of any Motion or any Bill under consideration either in Committee of the Whole House or on Report, Mr. Speaker, or in Committee the Chairman of Ways and Means, and the Deputy-Chairman, shall have power to select the new Clauses or Amendments to be proposed, and may, if he thinks fit, call upon any
Member who has given notice of an Amendment to give such explanation of the object of the Amendment as may enable him to form a judgment upon it.
Resolved, That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

Sir G. HEWART: I beg to move, as a new Standing Order.

Adjournment of the House (Standing Committees).

"That in order to facilitate the business of Standing Committees, a Motion may, after notice, be made by a Minister of the Crown at the commencement of public business, to be decided without Amendment or Debate, 'That this House do now adjourn.' "

It will be within the recollection of the House that in the course of yesterday's Debate the Leader of the House accepted in substance a proposal which was made from the other side with regard to the Adjournment of the House upon certain days, in order to facilitate the sittings of Standing Committees. The form of words of that Amendment was open to some observation, and I have endeavored to devise a form of words which would give effect to that proposal and also make it plain, as was desired by some hon. Members, that there might be a Division upon the question. The House will observe in the Motion which I have put down on the Paper at least three ingredients. In the first place, it is purely permissive; it does not compel the employment of this instrument on any day whatsoever. It merely enables this process to be carried out if and when the need should arise. In the second place, the House will observe that this course cannot on any occasion be taken without notice, and, in the third place, the House will observe that the Question, which must, be moved by a Minister of the Crown, will be a question for the House to determine—true, without Amendment or Debate—but if the House is so minded there will be the possibility of a Division.

I might have stopped my observations there if it had not been for the fact that in the course of yesterday's discussion more than one hon. Member on the opposite bench suggested that if the proposed plan were to be brought into operation it might upon a particular day be used, or at any rate so operate as to defeat a Motion for the Adjournment of the House. I should have thought myself that it was sufficiently clear that no Minister of the Crown would ever dream of employing this provision for
such a purpose as that. It would be an abuse of the Standing Order so to employ it, but in order that there may be no doubt as to what would happen in the particular contingency which I will mention in a moment, I have added a proviso to the draft Standing Order as it appears on the Paper. I have already said that, in order that this plan might be carried into effect, the Motion must be made after notice.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Under the provisions of the proposal the notice could be given as late as the night before the day on which the Motion is to be made.

Sir G. HEWART: The notice, I should have thought, must be given on the previous day, but if there is any point about that I will go a step further and make it clear in the terms of the Order that there shall not be less than two days' notice. That being so, the House will observe what will follow. Take the particular case in which notice has been given, a proper two days' notice, that upon a day named a Motion shall be made that the House do adjourn in order that the business of the Standing Committees might be facilitated. Two things would follow. Members of the Standing Committees would come down here expecting upon that Motion to take part in the work of the Standing Committees, and Members of the House would come down here expecting that at a very early hour the House would adjourn in order that the Standing Committees might do their work, and yet possibly it might happen sometimes that a question might arise which would reasonably give rise to an occasion for a Motion for an Adjournment of the House in ordinary circumstances Therefore, to meet that possible though most unlikely contingency, and in order to remove any possible misapprehension, I would propose to add to the draft as it appears on the Paper a proviso in these terms:
Provided that if on a day on which a Motion is agreed to under the Standing Order leave has been given to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, the Motion for which leave has been so given shall stand over until a quarter past Eight of the clock of the day on which the House shall next meet at a quarter before Three of the clock.
In the ordinary course the Motion for Adjournment of the House would be postponed until the next day, but it might be that the day upon which this question
arose would be Thursday, and in that case the Adjournment Motion would be postponed until Monday.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: In any case the adjournment of the House would not take place on that day under your Amendment.

Sir G. HEWART: If the condition precedent had been satisfied and not less than two days' notice had been given and the Motion carried, that the House should adjourn for this purpose, the Motion for Adjournment in the ordinary course for the discussion of a definite matter of urgent public importance would be postponed until the next day, but if it happened on Thursday it would be postponed until Monday. That is the whole meaning and effect of the proviso. I have endeavoured to meet every point that was raised upon this matter in the course of the discussion.

Mr. THOMAS: The original proposal of the Government is very dangerous—I will come to the Amendment in a minute—because in effect it may mean this, that if some sudden crisis in this country were to arise to-night or to-morrow morning it is at present within the power of any Member to come down to Parliament in the afternoon and on a question of urgency move the Adjournment of the House. Now the value of that briefly is this, that at least on half a dozen different occasions to my own knowledge this has been done with reference to industrial disputes, and, whatever our views upon industrial disputes may be, I do beg the House to keep clearly in mind that it will be in the interests of the country if Parliament is the body where these disputes are focussed. After all, we represent the country as a whole. Public opinion looks to us, and if we are to maintain our control, our supervision, and keep our Parliamentary institutions, it can only be done by preserving absolutely the right of this House to discuss all these matters. We are agreed upon that, but no one knows better than my right hon. Friend that this may happen. We have come down to the House with the intention of moving the Adjournment on a matter of urgent public importance which Mr. Speaker would accept as urgent business, but the Government are in a difficulty. The Government say, "We recognise the urgency and the importance of the matter and that Parliament ought to discuss it, but for Government reasons we do not want to give an answer." The result is
that by the Clause as now proposed it would be in the power of the Government immediately to come down on this day, move this Motion and rule out entirely any Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
This is partly met by my right hon. Friend's proposal; but what does that proposal mean? Let me assume that his proposal is in operation next week and on next Thursday great and important decisions affecting the miners, railway men, and transport workers are being debated, and it is known on the morning of Thursday that the crisis has been reached and that the strike may take place on Saturday. Yet under this very Amendment as now proposed the House would be prevented from discussing that until Monday. The whole trouble and difficulty would have been created and probably also have led to others. That is point number one. Let me take the second proposal. Let me point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the object of moving the Adjournment would be ostensibly to give facilities to the Committees upstairs. That would be the only object, because he frankly admits that there must be no ulterior motive. That means that it is essential to give facilities to the Committees upstairs.

Sir G. HEWART: After two days' notice.

Mr. THOMAS: But my hon. and learned Friend will admit at once that the Committee upstairs are not likely to go on sitting after a quarter-past eight. If the Committee meet at half-past ten and the object of the Adjournment of the House is to allow the Committee to go on sitting, I cannot conceive the Committee upstairs going on sitting after a quarter-past eight. Therefore the right hon. Gentleman could achieve his object of facilitating the work upstairs by having an Adjournment of the House in the afternoon, if he reserves the right of a private Member to move the Adjournment of the House on that day instead of the next. That would go along way to meet the difficulty. I do see the danger of the whole situation, and it is useless for us to be told that the Government would have no object in closuring Debate on any subject. We know perfectly well they would often have an object in doing so. I do not mean that in any unfair sense. Some hon. Members may move an Adjournment which may put the Government in a dilemma, but in the public interest it may be a good thing to debate the particular subject. I do ask
new Members and old Members to recognise that if we are going to preserve Parliamentary institutions we have got to make the people in the country have confidence in Parliament, and let the people in the country believe that Parliament is at all times ready to discuss those public questions which affect the people of the country. For those reasons I am bound to say that I do not think the Amendment proposed fully meets the situation.

Mr. BONAR LAW: There are two points to be considered. There is one which has been raised by my right hon. Friend and the other is the general point. As to the point raised by him, we would be perfectly willing to put in the proviso that in the event of a Motion for Adjournment having been made, then the Adjournment of the House should take place only to a quarter-past eight o'clock on that date.

Mr. THOMAS: I am bound to say I think that seems to be a fair solution.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am very sorry to differ from so many great experts, but I think that makes the thing worse. What is the proposal? The House may have sat in the afternoon with 300 or 400 Members present, and is to be adjourned until a quarter-past eight if an urgent Motion has been brought forward in order that two or three Committees may continue to sit upstairs at which probably 150 Members will be present. What are the other 250 Members to do in the meantime? [An Hon. Member: "Go home!"] The essence of an Adjournment Debate is that it should be taken when full interest is aroused. I do not think you could possibly ask those 250 Members to waste four and a quarter hours of time and then come back for an Adjournment Debate.

Mr. THOMAS: Does my hon. Friend suggest that they could debate the Motion now before eight-fifteen o'clock?

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I suggest that now you would have the 250 Members of whom I have spoken, and who are not ex hypothesi engaged on Grand Committee, with something to do from four o'clock to eight-fifteen, instead of having to go away under this proposal. That is only one, and not the main, objection to this scheme. This scheme is offered to obtain power on the part of the Government to close the House of Commons not as we thought for two days in the week, but, as
it now appears in the speech of the Attorney-General, on any day on which they choose to come down and say that in their opinion the work should go on in Committees upstairs. The Attorney-General did not tell us at what time the Grand Committees are to sit. I do not know if they are to sit from eleven o'clock in the morning till eleven o'clock at night, but if that is the proposal, then from my experience of Grand Committees, I can tell you that you will not get Members to do it. I have some experience of those Committees, which do their work well with economy of time and speeches. They get through nearly any very long Bill in a month, and any ordinary Bill in two or three days, or possibly a week. I venture to suggest with six Grand Committees, if four sit fairly regularly from half-past eleven till four o'clock, or even a little longer, they can do all the work of passing through Committee any Bills that the Government are likely to have passed on Second Reading. There is the work of private Bill legislation which is now set down for a quarter past eight on certain evenings. Hon. Members may not relish the fact that they have to do this work, but it is often of very great importance, and those interested in those Bills, for or against, make their arrangements accordingly. They may find by a notice, put down say on a Monday, that the House is to be adjourned for Committees upstairs. Then what is going to take place with regard to the ordinary Debate on the Adjournment Motion which often takes place after eleven o'clock at night? One frequently hears at Question Time an hon. Member say, "In consequence of the unsatisfactory answer I have received I will call attention to this matter on the Adjournment." The Leader of the House smiles, and I suppose he would rather not have that opportunity taken advantage of very often. Is a Debate of that kind to take place at eleven o'clock or at four o'clock?
The real point is that at the moment when the House has been returned full and eager to do the work there is a proposal to give the Government power to close the House down whenever they like, practically at four o'clock in the afternoon. The work of this House is not purely legislative. It is not a mere machine for grinding out so many Bills. The most important work of the House is done in the country, and in seeing that the Govern-
ment do that which the public want, and in controlling the administration of the country, and in looking after the Departments. Look at the number of questions we have to-day. They total 249, and that shows the interest which the country takes in many matters, because Members very rarely invent questions out of their own heads, and the questions really are the reflex of the Members' correspondence from his constituents. That great number of questions shows the keen interest which people in the country take in the work, not as a. legislative machine but as controlling the activities of the various Government Departments. If this right of the House of Commons to sit and do its work until eleven o'clock is taken away the public will say, "Again there is no sitting of the House of Commons—what is it doing?" The work of the Committees upstairs, as has been pointed out, is not of a kind or character that the public understand, or that the newspapers will report. What the electorate wishes to see is that the great House of Commons on which it relies is in constant session, doing its work and controlling the Government. I want to be quite frank on this one point. This proposal is not a part of the Government plan for amending the new Rules. They came down three days ago with a brand new batch of Standing Orders. The Leader of the House went almost as far as to say in one of his early speeches that unless the House gave him the power which the Government ask for in these Amendments to manage the business of the House, he could not undertake the responsibility of so managing it. I must confess it was rather early in the first days of a new Session of a victorious Government for a threat of resignation, for that is what it was. This proposal was not part of their plan at all. They did not come down here and say, "This plan is necessary to carry on the work." It was merely a private Member sitting on these benches who, fortuitously, put down this Amendment and the Government seized upon it and said, "Here is a scheme which will enable us to still more dominate the House of Commons," and they adopted the unusual course of accepting an Amendment proposed by a private Member. I say it would be a monstrous thing if the Government put on the Government Whips to whip for this Amendment. It is not their Amendment at all, but that of a private Member. It would
be a monstrous thing if they were to say to their supporters throughout the House that our allegiance to the Government demands that we should support this proposal, which is not their proposal, but that of a private Member. I do ask that when they are accepting this onslaught on the life of the House of Commons at least to allow the House of Commns free play to exercise their own decision as to whether they want it carried or not. I think if they would give that free play that they would receive such a reminder that the private Member of the House is still proud of his position as a Member and the work he is allowed to do here, and that they would not get a majority for this ill-fated proposal.
Amendment made: After the word "after" ["after notice"], insert the words "two days."
Leave out the words
the Motion for which leave has been so given shall stand over till a quarter-past eight of the clock on the day on which the House shall next meet at a quarter before three of the clock,
and insert instead thereof the following words:
Mr. Speaker, instead of adjourning the House, shall suspend the sitting only until a quarter past eight of the clock."—[sir G. Hewart.]
Main Question, as amended, proposed,

NEW STANDING ORDER.—(Adjournment of the House (Standing Committees.)

In order to facilitate the business of Standing Committees a Motion may, after two days' notice, be made by a Minister of the Crown at the commencement of public business to be decided without Amendment and Debate, "That the House do now adjourn," provided that if on a day on which the Motion is agreed to under the Standing Order leave has been given to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent public importance, Mr. Speaker, instead of adjourning the House, shall suspend the sitting only until a quarter-past eight of the clock.

Lord H. CECIL: I listened with great sympathy to my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Joynson-Hicks), but it seems to me that he lives in an unreal world. He finds that the House of Commons does now supervise and control the administration of the country, but I should have thought that was quite visionary. It is my earnest desire that it should have a much larger and more constant supervision and control over the administration of the country than it has at present, and it is precisely because I think that if more time were saved over its legislative business by the system
of Standing Committees that I am a supporter of the proposal of the Government as it is now framed. I do not think the process of moving the Adjournment is, in, its present shape, a very satisfactory form. It is one of those parts of procedure in regard to which there has been a long contest of ingenuity between the Chair on the one side and private Members on the other, and it has become surrounded with such a mass of barbed wire entanglements that to get a Motion of Adjournment through the delicate, narrow, and intricate channel by which alone it can approach, is becoming so complicated that in 99 cases out of 100 the Motion for Adjournment is not possible, even though the subject may be a matter of urgent public importance. I should like to see a much better opportunity given, and I throw this suggestion out to the Government, not as relevant to the present discussion, but for their consideration. I think it would be an improvement if on every allotted day the Speaker could be moved out of the Chair at the commencement of public business. Practically everything is in order on that Motion, and that would therefore give an opportunity for a free Debate. An hon. Member who is new to the House might suppose the House could discuss anything it liked at any time, but that is very far from the truth. We have all known of instances, where the House of Commons has been sitting for weeks and months together while all the rest of the country has been talking of something else, and the House of Commons has had its appointed task, possibly some Bill of no very great interest, to be gone through, and simply could not discuss what everybody was talking about. It has no freedom in that way.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: We can still less discuss such matters if we are not sitting.

Lord H. CECIL: But under the Government's proposal we should get rid of legislation much more quickly, and would therefore have more time at our disposal on other days for a Motion that the Speaker should leave the Chair. Though it would be necessary to keep the discussion on such a Motion within reasonable bounds, in the House's own interest, by the Closure, that could very readily be done after, say, a couple of hours 'discussion, when the House could go on in Committee with the ordinary
work of Supply. That would give a really free opportunity of discussing what people are interested in. My hon. Friend asks what the 250 Members who are generally in attendance between four and 8.15 are doing. I know what I am doing—reading the same piece of news in five different evening newspapers. I find that a very tedious operation, and not one of any national importance, and I would much rather be able to go home or somewhere else, and spend my time, possibly more profitably and certainly more amusingly. I can see no advantage by keeping Members here when they have nothing to do. Under the system of Standing Committees a certain number of Members would be actively doing work with a real opportunity for the private Member to take part in Debate and to shape a Bill. The other Members who were not on the Standing Committee would not be obliged to attend the House at all, and would be able to go about their ordinary normal business. Both, therefore, would immensely gain. My hon. Friend seemed to think the House would adjourn every day and that there would be no sittings at all, but that, of course, would not be in anyone's interest, and what would likely happen would be that the Government would adjourn the House one or two days a week in the middle part of the Session. Then the hon. Member said that probably it would not be possible for a Committee to sit from eleven in the morning till eleven in the evening, and that, of course is quite right; but I hope the ordinary practice will be that whereas unimportant Departmental Bills can be conveniently disposed of in the morning by a Committee without interfering with the ordinary sittings of the House, where a Committee is dealing with a great controversial measure it will sit in the afternoon and not in the morning, substantially adhering to the same hours as the House itself. If you sat two days a week during the summer months of April, May, and June, you would get quite a sufficient number of sittings to get through even a very important and controversial Bill. I believe that if the system, were worked like that, so far from its being an aggression by the Government on the rights of private Members, it would, on the contrary, be a valuable concession to private Members, and likely to restore to them something of what they have lost by repeated changes
of procedure. I am sure the true lines of reform of procedure are these, that the private Member of Parliament should be given real work to do and a real voice as a critic of the Administration and of legislation, and being given that real voice should at the same time be restrained from so abusing it as to obstruct the business of Parliament. If you can combine that you will have made a real reform, and I think the Government's proposal is a very substantial advance in that direction. It may be supplemented in future Sessions by further reforms. It is confessedly a matter of experiment, and I believe that if it is given the wise co-operation of all parties it will prove a great step in advance.

Sir T. WALTERS: The Noble Lord has invested this proposal of the Government with somewhat of a halo of romance. When he commenced to speak I noticed the anxiety on the countenances of the occupants of the Front Bench, and as he developed the reasons why the proposal should be adopted and as for the first time those reasons dawned on the intelligence of the Government, their expression seemed to say, "Thank God, someone really knows what we meant to do!" My position is this. I am very anxious to render any humble assistance I can to the Government in making more effective use of the private Members of this House, and in saving us all from wasting our time and slacking about here with nothing to do. But I want at the same time to preserve the ordinary privileges of the House, to maintain its prestige and dignity, and to do nothing to diminish the confidence of the public in the House of Commons. I fear that the Motion before us is an ill-considered proposal and that the scheme has never been definitely thought out, that concealed away somewhere in the inner secrets of it there are some good points; but nobody has yet found out which are the good points and which are the bad points, and I do not think the Government ought to ask the House of Commons to come to a decision upon this important principle until the Government have thought it out more in detail and have given us a more definite scheme. May I indicate by illustration what I meant? Supposing we had this permissive power granted to the Government that the House may be adjourned immediately after Questions. I cannot understand how that is really going to facilitate the sittings
of the Committee. One would have assumed from the speech of the Attorney-General, although he did not say so, that these Committees went on sitting all the time that the House would have sat if the Adjournment had not taken place; but then the Noble Lord, who really is an intelligent interpreter of the hidden mind of the Government, suggests that that is not the case at all—that the Committees are not to sit in the morning, but in the afternoon; and, therefore, it seems to me that what would happen is this: you would lighten the labours of the Committee in the morning in order that they might do the same number of hours' work in the afternoon as they would have done in the morning, and that those who are not on the Committee should have a day's holiday. That does not seem to be a better utilisation of the time, intelligence, and ability of the House of Commons.
I would far rather have some scheme of this kind. I have not been able to think it out in detail, but members of the Government may adumbrate their considerations without due reflection, and so, I suppose, ordinary private Members may do the same. I suggest some such scheme as this, that there should be some definite day in the week on which the House should not sit at all, or only sit for a limited number of hours, and that all the Members of the House should be on the Committees that did sit on that day, and that everybody therefore should sit in Committee while the House of Commons stood adjourned. I could understand that utilising the resources of private Members, or I could understand a scheme of this kind, that in order that Committees may sit till five or six o'clock on certain days of the week the House of Commons should not meet till five, or six—that we should go back to something like the old procedure and instead of meeting at two forty-five meet on certain days at four forty-five or five forty-five. There surely can be no reason why in order to enable 150 Members of Committees to sit for five or six hours in the day 700 Members should all have the day's holiday. We want a re-arrangement of the hours of business, both of Committees and of this House, if you are to carry out your new scheme, but clearly you have no scheme yet before you. I want to support the Government. I cannot help making jibes at them when I see them there before me, but it is only a debating habit, and I put this to them quite seriously, that we are in a difficulty
about this matter. We like the notion of economising the time of the House for the purpose of giving more time to Committees. We think there is something in it, but I think you might devise a method by which you might shorten the hours upon which the House of Commons sits, either on every day or on certain days in the week, and utilise that time to extend the services of the Committees, but I think that the method you have devised is about the clumsiest that the wit of man could possibly submit, and I think the reason is that, you are so busy that you have not had time to think about it; you extemporise all kinds of conditions and alterations to the Amendment, and you have got into a tangle of incoherence. If you will take it back and work out from it an intelligent scheme for the better utilisation of the time of the House and a more effective delegation to the Committees of the House, I think you will find the House of Commons most anxious to give it their support.

6.0 P.M.

Mr. J. W. WILSON: This proposed new Standing Order, it seems to me, could be brought in quite as well in a month or two's time, possibly even when the urgent need for it has appeared. Personally, speaking from the Grand Committee point of view, I think it would be much more helpful if it could be met by arranging that the House, by giving notice a day or two days before, should not meet till 4.45 instead of 2.45 p.m. Then the Committees could meet at eleven or eleven-thirty and have a short adjournment for lunch, followed by a good afternoon's sitting. From what I have seen of Grand Committees upstairs, the great difficulty of getting Members back, even after an adjournment for lunch, and the delay that often occurs before a quorum is formed, I do look with considerable dread on the idea of the House sacrificing the whole of its evening in the expectation that the Committee will sit, say, from four to eleven o'clock, with an interval for dinner, all the time taken in preparing to get away, and the feeling that the House is up, and no Whips are at the doors, and the various details which I need not mention, but which every Member with experience will realise. I feel that by arranging under this scheme for the Committees to sit from four o'clock to a doubtful ten, with an hour or
two out of it in. the middle, it would mean very little gain, and would upset the time of the House and give the country the irresistible feeling that when the House says it has not time to do its work, it is deliberately throwing over two days in a busy part of the Session for the sake of one or two, or at most three, Grand Committees who are overburdened with work. I think a much better thought-out scheme could be devised, and the Government would lose nothing by withdrawing this proposal for the present, and going on with the other proposals, which are quite distinct. Then they could, possibly, devote a day later in the Session to it, if need be. The more I look at it, the more I feel that some other scheme would be more convenient to Members, interfere less with the time of the House, require less arrangement beforehand, and would certainly mean more efficeint work and a fuller attendance at the Grand Committees.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I listened with interest to the remarks of my right hon. Friend, who has had so much experience in these matters, and, as regards my hon. Friend below the Gangway, I reciprocate the friendly views he expressed, but not to the extent that I wish to show it by gibing him on what he said. While he made quite a valuable speech against these proposals, I should be very interested to hear what particular form the speech would have taken if directed against his own proposal, had it been brought forward by us. I think, in that case, it would have been an equally eloquent speech. I quite agree there is an objection to any proposal of this kind you can make. But there is one point made by my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member below the Gangway which shows they did not pay any attention to the speech I made on the first day of these discussions. They spoke as if our proposal was something we had suddenly jumped at without consideration. I pointed out that the Committee set up to draft these reforms made a proposal which took the form of the Amendment we have suggested. They had two alternatives before them, and, after discussing them, we came to the conclusion that the form in which we introduced the Amendment to the House was better than the other. Do not let the House make any mistake. The proposals which we are asking the House
to adopt do mean a revolution in our procedure. I do not mean from the point of view of Closure—they are not very drastic in that respect—but from the point of view of getting the bulk of the business done by Committees, and that does mean a real revolution in the procedure of the House of Commons. We recognise it.
I want the House to realise exactly what our proposal is. We still think that the proposal we originally introduced is the best. Of course, members of the Government discussing these things do not always take the same view, but we come to a decision after discussion. I took the view myself that, suddenly to say that the House of Commons is not going to sit after Questions on so many days of the week would be a shock to the feelings of the House of Commons and to the country itself; at all events, until we had got accustomed to the working of the Grand Committees, it was too dangerous an innovation to make. I came to the conclusion, therefore, that if the House of Commons tried to work the new arrangement, it would be done with some commonsense, by the Chairmen of the Grand Committees considering what the business was going to be on a particular day, and on what day it would be wise to sit. I personally thought that, as there came pressure to get a particular Bill through, the Grand Committees would arrange by themselves to sit on certain days, and that what they would do, probably, would be to go into Grand Committee till lunch time, and then indulge—if they do in that vice, in a smoke, come to the House of Commons and listen to Questions, which interest everybody except the Government, and then go back and work in Committee, perhaps, for three or four hours. That is what I believe will happen. Against that, many Members of the House press the other view. What we want to do is to let our original proposal have a trial, and if we find that the evil, which those in favour of the other plan fear, happens, then the House of Commons, without making a new Standing Order, could give the other plan a trial. But it is not our intention to utilise the proposal which is suggested in this Amendment unless we find the other proposal breaks down. I see no reason whatever why the House should not agree to this Amendment, unless on the assumption that everything the Government is doing is with some vicious object—I do not think it is the view of the majority—[HON. MEMBERS:
"No!"]—of trying to deprive Members of some of their privileges. It is really no great risk to give us this Amendment. I think it is a fair compromise of two views as to the best way of working Grand Committees. I would ask the House to come to a decision, and I hope it will be in favour of the Amendment.
Question put, and agreed to.
Ordered,
That, in order to facilitate the business of Standing Committees, a Motion may, after two days' notice, be made by a Minister of the Crown at the commencement of public business, to be decided without Amendment or Debate, "That this House do now adjourn," provided that if on a day on which a Motion is agreed to under this Standing Order leave has been given to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, Mr. Speaker, instead of adjourning the House, shall suspend the sitting only until a quarter-past Eight of the clock.
Resolved, "That this be a Standing Order of the House."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

STANDING ORDER 26.—(Closure of Debate.)

The following Motion stood on the Paper in the name of Mr. BONAR LAW: At end of paragraph (2) to add as a new paragraph—

"(3) A Motion may be made by a Member in charge of a Bill (the assent of the Chair as aforesaid not having been withheld) that the Chairman do forthwith Report the Bill with or without Amendments to the House, or if the Bill be under consideration on Report, that the Bill be ordered to be read the third time, as the case may be, and the Question upon any such Motion shall be put forthwith and decided without Amendment or Debate."

Mr. BONAR LAW: I said to the hon. Gentleman behind me that when we came to this proposal I should have something to say to the House. We are dealing with the difficulties, mainly, of the present Session, and the present congestion of business, and I am quite sure that, in the ordinary sense, we have not to guard against obstruction. Therefore, our proposals are really made, not so much for meeting obstruction as for facilitating business. This proposal was not intended by us to take away from the liberties of ordinary Members, but I should like new Members especially to realise the power in this House of individuals, and the extent to which that overrides on particular occasions the whole sense of the House of Commons. For instance, I have had a great deal of experience of this during the War. We knew that the House of Commons was in favour absolutely of particular pro-
posals—for instance, the Consolidated Fund Bill and the Votes on Account. I had the experience two or three times of sitting on this Bench with only, perhaps, ten or twelve of our supporters here, and so had no power of using the Closure, and had to depend on the goodwill of particular individuals whether or not we got a Bill, which ninety-eight out of a hundred Members wished to get. I had to wait till the last moment to and out whether we could get that Bill or not. This proposal was intended to meet a case of that kind, but we have come to the conclusion that, with the facilities the House has already given, we shall be enabled to get our work without it, and I am, therefore, not going to move it.

STANDING ORDER 26.—(Closure of Debate.)

(3) A Motion may be made (the assent of the Chair, as aforesaid, not having been withheld) that, with respect to certain words in a Motion, Clause, or Schedule under Debate defined in the Motion, the Chair be empowered to select the Amendments to be proposed. Such a Motion shall be put forthwith and decided without Amendment or Debate. If the Motion is carried the Chair shall then and thereafter exercise the power of selecting the Amendments to be proposed on the words so defined. The Chair may, if the Chair thinks fit, ask any Member who has given notice of an Amendment to give such explanation of the object of the Amendment as may enable the Chair to form a judgment upon it. Provided that the power of selection shall not be exercised by the chairman of a Standing Committee.

Amendment made: Leave out Paragraph (3).—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

STANDING ORDER 27.—(Majority for Closure.)

Questions for the Closure of Debate or selection of Amendments under Standing Order, "Closure of Debate," shall be decided in the affirmative, if, when a Division be taken, it appears by the numbers declared from the Chair, that not less than one hundred Members voted in the majority in support of the Motion.

Amendment made: Leave out the words "or selection of Amendments."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

Ordered,

"Second and Third Readings.

If on an Amendment to the Question that a Bill be now read a second time or the third time it is decided that the word 'now' or any words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question, Mr. Speaker shall forthwith declare the Bill to be read a second or the third time as the case may be."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

Resolved, "That this be a Standing Order of the House."

STANDING ORDER 1.—(Sittings of the House.)

(7) A Motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown at the commencement of public business, to be decided without Amendment or Debate, to the following effect, "That the proceedings on any specified business, if under discussion at Eleven this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order 'Sittings of the House.' "or to the following effect, "That the proceedings on any specified business, if under discussion when the business is postponed, be resumed and proceeded with, though opposed, after the interruption of business."

Amendment proposed: Leave out the words

"If under discussion at eleven this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order, 'Sittings of the House,' or to the following effect: That the proceedings on any specified business."

and insert instead thereof the words

"be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order, 'Sittings of the House,' and. if such a Motion be agreed to, the business so specified shall not be interrupted if it is under discussion at Eleven o'clock that night, may be entered upon at any hour, although opposed; and."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

Sir F. BANBURY: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House to give an explanation of the reason why he has moved this alteration. The words of the Order are now as follows:
That the proceedings on any specified business, if under discussion at Eleven this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order, 'Sittings of the House,' or to the following effect: That the proceedings on any specified business, if under discussion when the business is postponed, be resumed and proceeded with, though opposed, after the interruption of business.
I do not quite see the point of the alteration, and I shall be glad of some explanation.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I have never been more surprised at anything than in hearing my right hon. Friend say that he does not understand the proposed Amendment. If he does not I am afraid I do not. Under the existing Standing Order, of which we have had a lot of experience, we can move that the particular business we specify shall be continued after eleven o'clock, and that there can be no Debate upon that Motion. Over and over again last Session we put down under the Eleven o'Clock Rule more than one subject. My right hon. Friend did not object, and I am very grateful to him for it; but the House on several occasions could have objected had they chosen. They never did—possibly because some hon. Members
were not quite sure of the Rule, but in the case of the right hon. Baronet I am sure it was because of goodwill to the Government. We are moving the Amendment for the purpose of making the Rule apply to more than one subject—that in all.

Sir F. BANBURY: I always understood that under the Rule that could be done, if done in proper form. I think I remember a ruling of yours, Mr. Speaker, in which you said that any particular business could be exempted. Possibly my right hon. Friend did not put his Motion down in the proper form! I did not take advantage of the occasions—which I might have done had a Radical Government been in power—because I was desirous of assisting the Government.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: After the word "postponed" ["business is postponed"], insert the word "may."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

Mr. BONAR LAW: I beg to move,

Business of Supply.

That in the present Session the following provisions shall apply with respect to Business of Supply notwithstanding any Standing Order or custom of the House:
(1) All Estimates, including Supplementary and additional Estimates, for the Army and Navy, Air Force, Civil Services and Revenue Departments, but not including Votes A and 1 of the Army, Navy, and Air Force Estimates, shall be referred to a Standing Committee instead of to the Committee of Supply;
(2) The Estimates shall be allotted for consideration to the Standing Committees of the House in such manner as Mr. Speaker shall determine, and shall be considered by the Standing Committee in accordance with the customary form of procedure of the Committee of Supply;
(3) A Motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown, after notice given, that certain Estimates or Votes be considered in Committee of Supply, and if such Motion be agreed to the Estimates or Votes therein specified shall be considered in Committee of Supply and shall be deemed to have been withdrawn from the Standing Committee;
(4) If notice is given of the consideration of any Votes other than a Vote of Credit in Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker, on the Orders of the day therefore being read, shall leave the Chair forthwith (notwithstanding anything contained in Standing Order No. 17);
(5) A Standing Committee to which any Estimates are referred may report from time to time any Resolutions to which they have agreed. All Resolutions which have been considered by a Standing Committee shall, when reported to the House, be proceeded with as if they had been reported from the Committee of Supply;
1257
(6) Those Votes only of which notice has been given shall be considered in a Standing Committee on any day, the right being reserved to His Majesty's Ministers of placing the Votes in the rotation in which they are to be taken and of determining whether Estimates or Bills should be considered on any particular day.
(7) Standing Order No. 15, which relates to Business of Supply, shall be modified as follows:
(a) That Order shall be taken to apply only to Business of Supply in the Whole House or in a Committee of the Whole House;
(b) Twelve shall be substituted for twenty as the number of allotted days, and accordingly that Order shall have effect as if the words "twelve" and ''twelfth" were substituted, respectively, for the words "twenty" and "twentieth" wherever they occur in that Order;
(c) Paragraph 1 of the Order (which relates to Business of Supply being the first Order of the Day on Thursday) and paragraph 10 of the Order (which relates to Additional Estimates) shall not have effect;
(8) The Committee of Selection shall have power to add not less than Ten nor more than Fifteen Members to the Standing Committee to which and Estimates are referred to serve on the Committee during the consideration of any specified Estimates, and the Committee of Selection and the Chairman's Panel shall have the same powers and duties in respect to Estimates as they have in respect of Bills referred to Standing Committees, in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Order.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I am sure the whole House will recognise that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has shown throughout this Debate a great desire to meet every point he possibly could consistently with the duty he felt he had to discharge to the whole House. There is no single point of real substance, so far as I have been able to see, which he has not gone a very long way to meet. It is because this proposal with which we are now face to face is one of overmastering importance—which has not only attracted very great attention in this House, but has also attracted a very large measure of public attention and a decidedly large measure of public uneasiness—that I feel confident that arguments, no matter from what quarter of the House they come, will be weighed by him with the greatest care and the greatest consideration. There are just a few points I desire to make, without any attempt at emphasising them by appeals to sentiment or anything of that kind—practical points which, I think, ought to weigh with us in considering this very far-reaching proposal.
First of all, this proposal strikes at the root of, indeed it sweeps away the real
origin of, the power of the House of Commons as a whole. It takes away subjects from the floor of this House and sends them upstairs to Committee, which will largely meet in private—make no mistake about that—and which will come to decisions; and I regret that even an official summary of those meetings upstairs will not be available. It will be left to the recollection of Members, and occasional reports in the newspapers, as to what has taken place at the Committees on matters which are vital, not only to this country, but to the whole of the British Empire. Let me try to establish that thesis. In at least four or five—I will say four, to be quite safe—of the great topics to be taken upstairs, to be removed from here, are questions of policy, and not of expenditure. Let me see if we can agree upon this fundamental point. Questions of policy ought to be discussed on the floor of this House. I think I carry the main assent of everybody in the Chamber to that. Those who have listened to our Debates in Committee of Supply will, I am sure, agree with this, that the Foreign Office Vote involves a matter of policy. The Colonial Vote, with its vast wide sweep over the whole of the British Empire—there, again, it is a question of policy. I would ask hon. Members to carry their minds also to the Home Office Vote. The Home Office is not a great spending Department, but is the very heart and centre of the social life and work of the people. Matters of high policy constantly come up on the floor of this House affecting, not only a great industry like the coal industry, but the liberties of the individual. Over and over again, any Member taking his mind back for ten years, can see how often all these questions have come up and have been discussed in detail. I pass from that without further elaboration.
Take, again, the Board of Trade. It is not a great spending Department, but in the past it has also maintained a grip on all the great commercial aspects of this commercial Empire. Policy, again, possibly comes up in connection with other questions. I quite agree that on some occasional nights the discussion on a particular Vote has been devoted to rather small points; but I would ask my right hon. Friend sitting opposite, with his very long experience of this House, whether, on an average, it would be safe to say from his recollection of these four Departments
which I have named that questions of policy, as distinguished from expenditure and detailed expenditure, were the main points we have had to discuss.

Mr. BONAR LAW: How many have been present?

Sir D. MACLEAN: Well, it depended upon the subject. Supply may be as deeply interesting as any Second Reading, except in the case of very great Bills. We have a proposal before us dealing with this question, in the shape of the Ninth Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure. There are several right hon. and hon. Members within my hearing and sight at the moment who are members of that Committee. This was a Committee which also called to its aid the vast experience of Mr. Speaker and the Chairman of Ways and Means. As far as I was of any use at all, I practically said "ditto" to these two great personages. They asked the opinion of Mr. Speaker and of the Chairman of Ways and Means. What were these suggestions? Shortly, they were that these Estimates should be subject to careful scrutiny before they came before the purview of the Whole House. They suggested that witnesses should come before them, and that they should have professional assistance and work hand-in-hand with that most useful Department, the Public Accounts Committee. Everyone who reads that Report will agree that it was one of the most lucid ever issued for many a long day dealing with a highly complicated subject. They said:
The policy is a matter for the Government and the House itself and not for Standing Committees of Estimates.
I call that in aid of the position I am now attempting to establish. There are other Departments in the great range of the Civil Service to which I could allude in this discussion. Take another question which is not unimportant—the proposal that this should be for this Session only. That is a very attractive, I will not say seductive, proposal, because I think it is honestly meant. My answer is that there never was a Session in the history of any Parliament which we can recollect when it was more dangerous to make this experiment. We have heard it from hon. Members of the Labour party in this House, and we know it as a fact from our own experience and knowledge of the world, that this House is being very closely watched. There is a spirit
of unrest abroad which is highly dangerous. In this Session this year, I do not hesitate to say that there is a spirit of revolution abroad. It is here. It has been epidemic over Europe and it is here among us to-day, and it will have its success or its failure according to where the conditions are favourable or unfavourable for it. I say if we adopt for this Session this tremendously wide and sweeping innovation, as it is granted that it is, we shall give a very favourable ground for the propagation of some of the worst forms of the danger which is among us. This House is composed of nearly 50 per cent. of new Members. I do not think this is the right time to introduce these changes. The new Members should have a fair opportunity of seeing the House of Commons work substantially on its older lines, except in so far as the administration demands that those old lines should be here and now fundamentally altered.
The other point that I make is rather a smaller one of detail, and it is that by this proposal we shall reduce the days of Supply from twenty to twelve. What does that really mean? I say that under the proposal Vote A and Vote 1 of the Army and Navy and the Vote for the Air Force are to be discussed on the floor of the House. Those are the days that will count, and the days of Report of those Votes will count. I should be very much surprised if the Votes for the Army and Navy and the Air Force do not excite more public attention this Session than ever they did before. For the last four and a-half years we have been taking Token Votes, and little has been said as to what has been taking place in these great military and naval forces. The pressure of the War was so great that appeals were made to hon. Members to curtail discussion in the interests of those great Services. All this pressure has now gone. The grievances in connection with those forces will necessarily have to be ventilated on the floor of this House, and they will never be able to get these Votes out of the way in one day. Time and again they will have to continue the discusson, to meet the public demand for further information.
I will take six days, one for the Army in Committee and one for the Report stage, that is two days. I will take the Vote for the Navy, which will take two more days, making four; and two for the Air Force, making six days. That takes
up six days out of the twelve, and it only leaves six days for the publicity required for the Foreign Office, the Board of Trade, the Board of Education, Colonial Service, the Home Office, and the whole range of the Civil Service. [An Hon. Member: "And for Scottish business!"] Yes, I have omitted that. On the whole I do not think you will get more than four days for the discussion of these great Services, and the policy of the whole thing cannot be dealt with in that time.

Mr. BONAR LAW: How does the right hon. Gentleman divide it up?

Sir D. MACLEAN: You have a day in Committee and another day for Report on the Army.

Mr. BONAR LAW: We propose to make twelve days instead of twenty days for Supply. As I understand it, these twelve days will be as much available as the twenty days. So that at the worst there will only be a difference of eight days.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I do not think my right hon. Friend is correct, but in any case I will give him the benefit of the two or three other days, because it does not affect my argument very much. I press most strongly on the Government that to curtail great discussions of policy and the publicity of them is a most dangerous experiment to make at any time, and it is highly dangerous just now. We all remember the old method of redressing grievances and the method by which the Speaker used to be appointed. Now we know the election of Speaker is a matter for the House. We still go through the delightful old formula for the election of our Speaker, and I hope none of these old formulæ will ever be swept away—that they may remain part of our national life. You elect from among your ordinary private Members your Chairman of Ways and Means, and I should be very sorry indeed it these privileges were swept away.
I can look back on the experience of the past eleven years, and let the oldest Member of this House look back not to instances where these privileges have been abused. Let them charge their Parliamentary memories, and then I think they will agree with me when I say that on the whole our old practice has been a great advantage, as it has been the means of bringing about a real public service. The old system has often given
opportunities for the discovery of private Members of real capacity and great usefulness, and good legislation has often resulted. Already the Government have very large and sweeping powers, and I do not grudge them one little bit. Properly used, as I believe they will be, those powers will not only conduce to the greater efficiency of the House, but increase its dignity and authority. There is no urgent necessity for this proposed change. On the other hand, there is a real danger which may be averted, and I beg my righthon. Friend, in the interests of this House, and also of the country, not to press this proposal.

Sir E. CARSON: I think everyone will admit that we have reached an order which requires a great deal of anxious consideration. I think the case against the proposal has been put with great clearness by my right hon. Friend opposite. At the same time I am bound to say that it has always struck me that our old procedure was really defective from a practical point of view. It is all very well to talk about the maintenance of control over finance, but everybody knows that finance, certainly since I came here, has never been controlled in any proper sense by the House, Take the Estimates. One of the most ludicrous performances we have gone through for many years has been that of an appointed day for taking the outstanding Estimates which have never been discussed and have never been before the House at all, and they have to be put one after the other keeping us up until all hours in the morning, because that is the day generally chosen by hon. Members who want to make up a good total in the Division Lobby. Let us get away from the hallucination that we really have a perfect system. Do not let us deceive ourselves or attempt to tell young Members that in the past there were really great financial critics in this House. There were no such, and everybody knows it. I hope at all events this much will be clear in this Order, that the Estimates will go to Committee. We have discussed this matter very often. A way must be invented by the House of going really into the Estimates, and I do not believe there is any better way than sending them to Committee. I should like to say, and I suppose it will be so, that the Committee will be a Standing Committee and will be able to get all the necessary information that may be required from or through a Minister of the Crown, and that
the Committee upstairs will have the presence of various gentlemen of the Treasury, who are acquainted with and are able to give the necessary information. The voting of hundreds of millions in a block in the middle of the night is not a business transaction. Therefore, so far as I am concerned I am very glad that the change is going to be made. It is merely a Sessional change; we will see how it works.
I am greatly affected by what the right hon. Gentleman opposite said that finance very often depends upon policy, nearly always, in many respects, depends upon policy. I do also recollect that very often incidents occur whether in the country at home, or abroad in foreign countries, which the House wishes to discuss. The way in which the discussion has hitherto been raised has been by asking the Minister of the Department concerned to put down the Estimate for discussion in the House. I do not think we ought to give up our opportunities of raising questions in this way. As regards the improvements that the Government are making in the Procedure of the House, I think there should be more time for the raising of questions of policy and for great Debates affecting not only the country at home, but the whole Empire, particularly in our foreign relations. The House ought to be very jealous of having a single day taken away on which it might discuss policy, and I would submit that we ought not to shorten the number of days on which the Estimates could be discussed in this House. But they ought to be so regulated that they would rather be Second Reading days of Estimates on which the principles of them might be discussed, and also the policy of the Home Office, the Colonial Office, of the Local Government Board, and even, I may say, once in the Session, of the Irish Office.

Mr. DEVLIN: Not at all!

Sir E. CARSON: Oh, yes! The hon. Gentleman opposite, I think, will take advantage of that, no matter what he may say. I hope the Government will give us an assurance that the days on which Estimates would have come on will not be shortened, and that those days may be added to the general days of the House in some way or other on which policy could be discussed. I think that would be a great improvement and would give us a greater opportunity than we have had
before of discussing vital questions of the policy of the Government. There is one other matter to which I should like to refer, and it is this. When we meet together, whether it is right or wrong, early in the year and not late in the autumn, as I think would be an improvement myself—but that is not under consideration—when we meet here we do so at a time when everybody is extremely anxious to have the policy of the Government developed with regard to their Bills of the Session. We are at once switched off to finance; finance must be got through before the 31st March. I myself would be glad if that had been done earlier, and that we could then proceed regularly with the ordinary business of the Session. But I think it must be conceded to the Government that it is essential as far as possible to facilitate in every way their getting through their finance before the 31st March, and, so far as I am concerned, under the existing circumstances I think they ought to have every opportunity for doing so. But subject to that, I would appeal to my right hon. Friend opposite most seriously not to take away from the number of days which is essential for the discussion of policy, but that he might endeavour to restore, instead of twelve days, twenty days, so that when we get back the Estimates, either on Report or in some other way, we may have preserved to us full opportunities for the discussion of the policy of the Government.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I beg to move, after the word "the" ["additional Estimates for the Army and Navy"], to insert the words "Foreign Office."
I quite agree with the observation of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down that the present system of voting money is perfectly indefensible. I have, in two or three remarks I have already made in regard to these Rules, called attention to the way in which millions of money were sometimes voted without a single word of discussion and by a series of perambulations through the Lobbies. The way in which we have voted money away lavishly is perfectly ridiculous and farcical. Therefore I am totally in sympathy with the purposes of the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, as I was in genuine sympathy with his proposal for the reference of Bills to Standing Committees. My criticism of the right hon. Gentleman's proposal is that I do not think it is adequate. I go further than
that, because I think that the inevitable result of these proposals, especially if we do not adopt the suggestions made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles, will be to relax the grip of the House of Commons on the policy of the Government. My purpose is not to relax, but to enlarge and to strengthen control of the policy of the Government by the House of Commons. After all the selection of the items for discussion in Supply is very often chaotic and accidental. I have taken part in many such Debates in my hot youth, and I believe that on one occasion a discussion took place on the salary of the rat-catchers of the Palace. Of course the time devoted to that detail was taken away from discussion of more important subjects, but what I want to point out to the House is this: What is our control of the executive? In the first place it is almost impossible for anyone to discuss methods of detail in the Estimates without having had some previous knowledge or study of the Estimates.
We have had a Committee on National Expenditure. I wish to again call the attention of the House to the fact, already brought out, that that Committee on National Expenditure, in which that old Parliamentarian, the hon. Member for the City of London, took a prominent part recommended the creating of Standing Committees, in addition to the one Standing Committee already existing—I think two were proposed and a third was suggested—for the purpose of going into the Estimates. It is evident that it is perfectly absurd to imagine that a great public meeting such as this House is can go into the details and volumes of accounts with any efficiency. Therefore, certainly, there ought to be a previous examination of those Estimates by Standing Committees. That is to a certain extent the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, but that is simply an examination of the accounts from the point of view out detail, and not of policy. My suggestion to the Government is that the Standing Committee should have the power not merely to examine details, but also to discuss and even pronounce upon policy. I know that will be regarded by some hon. Members as a, revolutionary innovation, and I know the Leader of the House will oppose it. All officials will oppose me until the House is strong enough to take the matter into its own hands. With regard to the great departments of expenditure, the Army, the
Navy, and the Foreign Office, this House should examine not merely their expenditure, but also their policy, and the necessity for that is illustrated by incidents still fresh in our memory, and drawn from the great War from which we have just emerged.
7.0 P.M.
I am going to be as delicate and as reticent as I can in reference to certain matters which are not very much to the credit of our administration. Take the Army first. I heard Gentlemen getting up every night in the first nine months of the War and denouncing in every kind of term the Administration of the day. These attacks were more or less relevant. I did not join in them; I thought that it was not the time, in the emergency of the War, to criticise the Government without a knowledge of the facts. The remarkable thing was that in all these criticisms upon the Government of the day there was never a single allusion to the central fact which stood behind the question whether we were going to win or lose the War—namely, the state of our munitions. Yet it was the dissatisfaction of the country reflecting itself in the opinion of the House, and it was the daily publication in the newspapers of disasters that were overtaking our Armies in the field, because of the want of munitions, that overthrew the Government of the day and put a Coalition Government in its place. Not one word of that was mentioned in the House of Commons before the collapse came. I put it to the House, that if we had had a Standing Committee whose duty it was not merely to examine the accounts of the War Office—that is not enough—but a Committee who had the right to bring before them either the Secretary of State for War or the Under-Secretary of State for War and the officials of the War Office, and if that Committee had been presided over—he is a political opponent of mine, and therefore I can mention him without any suspicion of partiality—by a man like the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), do you suppose that we should have had to wait until May in order to find out that munitions were wanting and that the success of our Army and our cause was being endangered for the want of munitions? I say that any good Committee with a strong chairman would have found out that defect in our armour within a fortnight's examination of the accounts.
I will take the Navy—another great Department. I have not yet had the advantage of reading the book of Lord Jellicoe with regard to his naval experiences, but I have read several extracts from it in the Reviews, and there are in that book several most startling revelations, save, of course, that we have now won, as to the defects in the Navy—defects in a system which, whatever else in our organisation we criticise, we regarded as perfect. Would anybody suggest, if we had had a Naval Committee in this House with power to examine not merely the figures, but the officials and the Ministers responsible for that Department, that these defects would not have been found out by the penetrating eye of some business man on that Committee? I now come to my third Department, on which I feel even more strongly, namely, the Foreign Office. I said the other night, and I repeat, that I regard it as dangerous to entrust the decision of peace or war to a single man or to two or three men, whether they be called Kaisers or Cabinet Ministers. Is not that a proposition which commends itself to the judgment of every man? [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] I did not catch the dramatic whisper of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. BONAR LAW: It was not intended for the hon. Member.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I thought the right hon. Gentleman said that it depended upon the men.

Mr. BONAR LAW: Some of my hon. Friends in answer to the hon. Member said "No, no." I was not prepared to go as far as that, and I said "It depends upon what he means."

Mr. O'CONNOR: We are supposed to be in the halcyon days of democracy and to exercise omnipotent control over the executive, but we have little or no control over the foreign policy of the Government. I gave an example the other night how we gave four hours to the foreign policy of the British Empire and twelve hours to the affairs of a water company. As things are to-day and as they will remain if this Resolution be carried, our control of the foreign policy of this nation will be nil in this Parliament. We can turn out a Minister, but that will be little satisfaction to us if he has embroiled our relations with countries with
which we ought to be in the most amicable relation. Our whole control is what I may call ex post facto control. The control has passed from our hands by decisions to which we are bound, whether we like them or not. That may appear an exaggerated statement, but let me call attention to a very remarkable instance that occurred not many months ago. I have reason to remember the night, because it was the first time that I had the pleasure of being present after thirteen months absence in America. In the course of a very interesting speech the Prime Minister stumbled into the statement that we were bound to come to the rescue of France by a compact. That was his word. I pricked up my ears when I heard the word "compact" and a much more important individual than I am, Mr. Herbert Samuel, who was at the moment representing the Front Opposition Bench, got up and repudiated the word. He quoted from the speech of Sir Edward Grey repudiating the word "compact." I remember, all of us here must remember, the night of 3rd August, 1914, when Sir EdwardGrey made the speech which was practically a declaration of War against Germany. Some people forget that the first speech that was made in defence of that policy was made from these benches by the late Mr. Redmond. He got very little thanks. The Prime Minister, I suppose, had brought to his attention the observation of Mr. Herbert Samuel, and with that quickness for which we all give him credit, he saw that it was necessary to come back and make an explanation. Therefore, after he had been absent from the House some time, he came back and made an explanation—
My right hon. Friend opposite has challenged the word 'compact,' and I say at once, that I think the word 'compact' was much too strong to describe what actually passed. I think it is very important that any misunderstanding on that point should be instantly put right. I was alluding to the speech of Sir Edward Grey.
Then having quoted from Sir Edward Grey he went on to say:
I think the word 'compact' was too strong to use in that connection.
But what was his next observation?
In my judgment, it was an obligation of honour.
An obligation of honour is a compact to an honourable nation, and therefore I see nothing but a distinction of words. I felt on the night Sir Edward Grey read out the communications between this Government and the French Government, and
I feel now, that we were bound by an honourable obligation to come to the defence of France when she was attacked by Germany. I do not complain of it. I think it was quite right. I think our sense of duty to France was accompanied by our sense of duty to our own security as an Empire, and that if we had deserted France, as I am sorry to say we did not stand by her side in 1871, we should have been the first victims that would have followed the destruction of that great and honourable and civilised country. I am not complaining of all this. I only want to make my position quite clear. I knew long before I heard these revelations of the Notes that had passed between us and the French authorities, that we must be committed to the defence of France, because in passing through that country I saw that France had risen to a new height of self-confidence and courage quite in contrast with the spirit of depression and almost self-distrust which I had seen after the great defeat of 1871. My point is that the obligation was honourable and that it was right to enter into it, but that the House of Commons and the country knew nothing of the obligation. Is that right? Is that democracy? Is that control of Parliament? Is that control of the people? Is that compatible with the new evangel of President Wilson and the League of Nations, which I hope will be ultimately adopted by all the nations. I find that the very first of the Fourteen Points of President Wilson, which we have accepted and on the strength of which we got a proposal of Armistice from Germany, is this:
Open covenants of peace openly arrived at, after which there shall be no private international understandings of any kind, but diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in the public view.
That is what I call democracy; that is what I call Parliamentary control; that is what I call popular control. Anything short of that is not Parliamentary control, or popular control or democracy. It may be supposed by some hon. Gentlemen who are listening to me that I am proposing something that is extraordinary and unprecedented in the history of legislation. As a matter of fact, I am trying to bring up the legislature of this great free nation to the level of the legislatures of other free nations. We are the exception. A Parliamentary Committee which has a right to examine the accounts and the policy of the public departments of the
State exists in almost every legislature of the world. Take the United States, for instance. There no treaty, as we know, can be made without the concurrence of the Senate. They have a Foreign Affairs Committee there. Then in the Reichstag of the old German Empire there was a Budget Committee which had a right to examine the budget, and that committee had also a right to supervise the whole foreign and domestic policy of the German Empire. It had, of course, only a debating power, but still it had the right to discuss these things. In France they have neither a House of Lords nor a Monarchy, but there is not a single department there that has not its committee There are forty committees of twenty-five members whose duty it is to examine the accounts, and we who paid a visit some time ago to the French capital listened with amazement and admiration, and also with shame may I add, to those gentlemen there, seeing as we did their knowledge of every single fact in all departments—of the number of shells, guns and submarines, and of the foreign relations of their country. There I saw what I considered true democratic Parliamentary control. It is my complaint against the Government that they are not proposing to give to the Committees upstairs power to examine and control policy. In other words, the effect of the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman is not to strengthen but to weaken the control of the policy of the Government by the House of Commons.
Stress has been laid in several speeches in this discussion on the neglect of the Parliamentary services of Members of the House. A Noble Lord, who is certainly not the least distinguished Member of the House for brilliancy of intellect, has described himself as spending a good many hours of the day in reading five times in succession the same news in different papers. There was an hon. Member who used to sit in the last Parliament—Sir Henry Hibbert—the Chairman of the Education Committee of the county of Lancashire, who enjoyed the respect of every party in that great county and was loved even by those who differed from him most violently on political and on educational questions of which he was in control. He sat for several years in this House. Here was a great experienced mind at the service of the House of Commons, of the Government, and of the country, but Sir Henry was not asked to give any service.
There was no room for him. There would be room under the systems now proposed by the Government, but there would be greater room under the system I suggest. I met Sir Henry in the Smoke Room one day, and said to him, "Where do you spend most of your time during the hours the House is sitting?" He replied, "In this corner." That is the use we made of this great trained mind. We condemned it to a corner in the Smoke Room of the House of Commons. I have never meta new Member of the House of Commons who was engaged up to the time of his election to this House in great business transactions or large local administration who has not said that the first six weeks or the first six months of his experience in the House of Commons provided one of the greatest disillusions of his life. I admit it is rather a come-down from the glorification of infatuated admirers in the enthusiasm of a General Election to the cold atmosphere of the House of Commons, where everybody is very much like everybody else.
But the real reason is this: These men do not obtain their great positions in this commercial country without great business experience and great energy and the devotion of every second of their time to the best work that can be produced in that time. They come to the House of Commons and find all they have to do is to wander from the House to the Smoke Room, from the Smoke Room to the News Room, from the News Room to the Tea Room, and from the Tea Room to the Dining Room. I heard it once asserted that Parliamentary life was simply boredom tempered by Divisions A man comes full of ardour, but he finds he is kept here from four till eleven at night; he is chained to silence, and surrounded by Whips. On the other hand, every man in the French Chamber has every moment of his Parliamentary time occupied in doing work for his country. On a Munitions Committee he helps to control munitions; on the Foreign Affairs Committee he helps to control foreign policy; and on the Shipping Committee he helps to control shipping. Every moment of his time is employed to the full. Here you have the real disease of this Parliament. That is why Parliament has become discredited. My sincere and inward fear, for I am a Parliamentarian and believe in Parliament as the best method by which society can be governed—my fear is that a
palsied House of Commons, controlled by an Executive not sufficiently watched, will reduce to disgrace and despair the Parliamentary institution in which we all have so much pride.

Mr. DEVLIN: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. BONAR LAW: All the speakers have been good enough to say that I have done my best to meet the House, and I should like, in turn, to say that in my now pretty long experience I have never known a House of Commons so willing to help a Minister in getting through controversial matters. On this particular question, if it were possible for me to do anything to meet the views which have been expressed, I would gladly do it. I will deal with the speeches as fully as I can, but before doing so I should like to say a word or two on the very interesting speech of the hon. Member who has just spoken (Mr. T. P. O'Connor). The hon. Gentleman said that the result of our present system is that the House knows nothing about foreign policy, whereas other Parliaments do get that knowledge. He gave as an illustration particular arrangements made between France and this country before the War. I am not going into that question now. But I do not think my hon. Friend can say that anyone except Ministers and ex-Ministers in the French Parliament knew the precise nature of the obligations which France had undertaken in the event of war with England or any other country.

Mr. O'CONNOR: I am not so sure of that.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am very sure. The hon. Gentleman asked us to adopt the system which prevails in another country. But he has not given us the results of that system. And at any rate he has not shown us that it tends to prevent war. People, without talking nonsense, have pointed to the fact that Germany's autocratic Government was the cause of this War, but it should be remembered that in a House of Commons like ours, and under a system such as obtains in a democratic country like France, it is quite impossible to make any secret preparations for an aggressive war without its being suspected at least. With regard to the other part of the hon. Member's speech, I think most of us will be inclined to agree with his diagnosis. My right hon. Friend beside me tells me that in travelling in
France he saw in a train the inscription, "Life is one—thing following another." What has happened in the House of Commons is that we form expectations which are not quite realised. But my hon. Friend will agree that the House has some curious attraction, and that there are very few people who once become Members of it who leave it except as a result of circumstances over which they have no control. I agree with what the hon. Member said as to the useless sort of life which is presented to a man who comes fresh to this place from a large business. We hope that even our proposals will help to make it more interesting. I remember very well one Scottish Member of the particular type to which the hon. Gentleman referred—he was well known and attended every Division, and he was a friend of mine. I said to him once, "What is it that makes you come?" He gave a better answer than mine, and it was so good that perhaps I had better give it in the dialect common to both of us. He said, "I have come here to keep somebody waur oot." I hope we shall be able to do something to give men of that kind a better reason for being interested in the House of Commons.
I will come now to the proposal. I say at once to the House that we found it much more difficult to get satisfactory proposals about finance than with regard to the other parts of the procedure. I want the House to face this problem. The custom of every Session has been that up to the 3lst March the whole time of the House was taken up more or less with financial business. In present circumstances it is that time which is of great value to the Government. We have to get the Second Readings of the big Bills quickly in order to be able to send them to these Grand Committees, and unless some change is made which gives us help during this early period the advantage will not be nearly so great as it would be otherwise. If we are to get that time, the obvious way to try to do it is to make some change in the proceedings on Finance. That is the explanation, at least, why these proposals are made. When we were considering them I was impressed by precisely the point of view put by my right hon. Friend (Sir E. Carson) and by the hon. Gentleman who spoke last. Whatever may be said, our procedure is justified by long usage and theoretically giving us control. As a
matter of fact, the time which was given by the Rules to Supply was to a large extent wasted. When my right hon. Friend spoke of the big questions we considered in Committee of Supply, I asked, him how many people were present? I have had some experience in this respect. For instance, I was in the Colonial Office, which was one of those to which he referred, and sat out a whole Debate, but you hardly ever had enough to keep the House if anybody had chosen to call a count. On the other hand, I have attended Debates on Scottish Estimates and have never found anybody there who was not waiting to speak, but whenever an English Member put his nose through the door he went away frightened, as if something terrible was going to happen to him. It is quite true that the present system does enable us to raise subjects in which there in intense interest, and when that happens it is an immense advantage. The question is how are we, without depriving the House of anything that is of real value, to save the time it is necessary to save? What are the objections, beyond those I have mentioned, to our present system of Supply days First of all, you have to have one on a Thursday. Old Members of the House know that the reason for that was that when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was making changes Supply was put off by the Government to the very end of the Session, and this provision was put in to ensure that Supply should be discussed within a reasonable time. What is the result? I am sure that every Member of the last Parliament will agree that you had to have a Thursday for Supply whether anybody wanted it or not. I have seen my Noble Friend beside me (Lord E. Talbot) and the Whips on the Opposition Bench using their utmost ingenuity to find any subject for a Thursday which anybody wanted to talk about. Will it do to go on in that way?

Sir D. MACLEAN: That was during the War.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I think it often happened in other times.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Not in my experience.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is correct. The result is that if you rely entirely on that Rule you are compelled to have subjects discussed at a time when there is no
special need for discussing them, and when a very big subject comes up, which the House does desire to discuss, you cannot find a day for it because of the way in which the House is congested with other business. The House will see that under this proposal we do deprive it of the Motion to get Mr. Speaker out of the Chair. The reason for that is that these are days that come before the 31st March. We must try to save time then. We cannot do it otherwise. I should be glad to leave them in if we could get the time. My right hon. Friend said that is a bureaucratic custom. That is really all it is. It was based on the idea that grievance must come before Supply, and for that reason the Speaker was not allowed to go out of the Chair in order that the House might discuss Supply until grievances had been discussed. That was the basis of it, and it is quite right if you look at it as a traditional right. But would anybody in the House pretend that it has any meaning as a protection in our existing procedure? The real object of Supply days is that they enable the House, and particularly the Opposition, to discuss subjects, whether the Government wants them discussed or not. That is a great advantage. It will be rather more difficult to work now, because the Government will have some difficulty in deciding what particular subjects are desired to be discussed.

Sir D. MACLEAN: We will arrange that without any difficulty.

Mr. BONAR LAW: Is my light hon. Friend quite certain of that?

Sir D. MACLEAN: Quite certain!

Mr. BONAR LAW: I will tell him something he does not know. He thinks he will make some arrangement with his right hon. Friend who sits besides him (Mr. Adamson), but perhaps some other group, far more numerous than either, will demand a discussion on some other subject. That is what I mean.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: We can easily do that.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I need hardly say I do not want much of that, but I would point out that it is going to make it much more difficult to decide the questions to be discussed. The real objection to this proposal from the theoretical point of
view, which has played such a large part in so many speeches is, in substance, that it means, if the House as a whole, or the Opposition, wish to criticise the Government, they will be prevented from raising big questions which they could raise if these Supply days were continued. That will be inevitable. One hon. Member, while approving of the principle of sending Bills to Grand Committees, urged that the House should not be deprived of these further facilities. The Government have always meant that. We thought that by these arrangements we should have a larger time available to give a day to the discussion of any subjects which might certainly arise or any subject on which there was a strong desire that it should be discussed. I should be perfectly willing now, provided the House gives us the rest of our proposal to enable us to save time before the 31st March—that means giving up the theoretical objection on the question of moving Mr. Speaker out of the Chair—if you give us this, I will undertake to give the twenty days, but when I do that I do not of necessity say Supply should be taken on a Thursday or on a particular day, because really that is a disadvantage and forces us to take a discussion when the House does not want to do so. I am perfectly ready to alter the paragraph which gives twelve days to make it twenty days on that understanding.

Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the time which was allowed for the discussion of Estimates for Ireland will still be retained in the House? The discussion of all questions affecting Ireland can only be taken on the Estimates.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I really do not follow that. Will the hon. Member explain?

Mr. DEVLIN: What I mean is this. Will the Irish Estimates be sent to a Standing Committee? I want to know that first of all.

Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes.

Mr. DEVLIN: If so, shall we be allowed a corresponding advantage from the point of view of time to be allowed to discuss matters affecting Ireland which we shall secure by discussing them on the Estimates?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I think I can answer the question in the affirmative in this way; if under the old system a day would have
been given to Ireland for the discussion of Estimates, a day will be given to Ireland under the proposals I have made. I hope that is satisfactory?

Sir C.HENRY: May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that I have an Amendment down providing that of the twelve days no less than six shall be allotted to Reports of Estimates considered by the Standing Committee.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot accept that. These subjects are not to be chosen by the Government, that is the essence of it. If I promise twenty days they should not be tied down to particular subjects, whether reported upon or not.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Is the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman this: That we should have twenty days for public discussion either upon Report or in Committee of the Whole House on the Estimates?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes. I will tell the House what I mean and I think the House will agree. Everyone knows, nobody better than the right hon. Gentleman, that the Estimates were used in the main as an opportunity for discussing some big question. I promise to give twenty days here so that they may be utilised for discussing any big question of policy which arises and which parties in the House desire to discuss. Is not that satisfactory? May I further point out that this is a Sessional Order and we are asking for it as an experiment for one year. I do not believe this will be a permanent arrangement. I have had the advantage of understanding how these things worked in the past. This is not at all a substitute for a detailed examination of expenditure, and it was never intended for that. It was meant to be a saving of time at a period of congestion. Nobody ought to know better than I that some improvement in the discussion of the Estimates or of expenditure is vital. The Select Committees which sat in the last Parliament were never looked upon in a hostile way by the Treasury at all, and we did our best to make use of the recommendations they made. They were useful. I have discussed this whole subject with my successor at the Treasury. He takes precisely the same view I was taking, that something has got to be done, and we have to have an examination of expenditure. I have examined very carefully the Report of the Select Committee on this subject. I am
not going into it now, but I do not think that is a system which, as they put it, would work out. I am not sure—I am not pledging my successor or myself—that in expenditure we may not be driven to something approaching the French system in this matter. I think that is quite possible. But we should not have time probably to think out a different scheme this Session, and if we decide that it cannot be done this Session, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will set up again a Select Committee similar to the one in the last Parliament with the object of dealing with expenditure. From that point of view we are doing what we can.
What will be the use of these Standing Committees? I quite admit it is almost absurd to have in Standing Committees the kind of discussion we had here on Supply days, where it really was not an examination of expenditure at all. The whole object was to annoy the Government. That is of no use upstairs. What I hope will come from this is that the members of the Standing Committee who will have to deal with Estimates will see that it is no good making long speeches about matters of high policy. They will try to look at them as estimates of expenditure. That, at least, is my hope. How will that work? Do not let anyone think that under these proposals the Government is going to have an easy time. It is quite, the reverse. It is going to be a serious disadvantage to Ministers. They will have to attend these Committees and answer questions. People will be using every kind of ingenuity to find what this expenditure or that means, and things will certainly be found out there which would not have been found out in the ordinary way in the House of Commons. There is another danger. They may cut down, but fortunately they have not the power to increase, a particular item of expenditure. Of course, if it were a Minister's salary, obviously the Government could not allow that to go on, because they would have to resign, but I agree with my Noble Friend that unless it is something which it is impossible to leave as it is, we shall destroy the usefulness of these Standing Committees altogether if we give them the impression that, after careful and minute work, what they do is going to be upset again on the floor of the House of Commons. The Government has to run the risk of examination by this Committee. It therefore certainly is not in our interest. I do not
think I can say more. In judging it, I ask the House of Commons to consider our difficulties. I ask them to realise that, though they may not like it, if anyone tried to form another plan they would like it just as little. But it is only for a single year, and it is an experiment which might be worth trying. I may inform the House that if we get through the Procedure Resolutions to-night we shall not take any other business.

Mr. J. W. WILSON: Supposing this Committee or Committees examine the Estimates in detail, there may be a great block of Estimates on their hands near the end of the Session. Are any means provided in order to get the Estimates back? It is a long time since we had a perfectly open discussion without Closure.

Mr. BONAR LAW: We shall have to take steps to see if any can be brought back to the floor of the House.

Mr. R. McNEILL: I should like to know whether one particular Standing Committee is to be set apart for the consideration of all the Votes in Supply, or whether some Votes will go to one Committee and some to another. If it means that one Standing Committee is to have all the Votes before it, it really means that this very important branch of public business is to be withdrawn from the consideration of all the Members of this House, with the exception of some fifty or sixty who will be on that particular Committee. If that is so, it appears to me to be very serious from the point of view of those Gentlemen who will be excluded from this consideration. The discussion which has hitherto taken place on this matter has been from the point of view of the House of Commons and the dealing with public time. But there is another point of view which has been rather left out of account—that is the point of view of the constituencies. At all events in theory—and I do not think it is a theory that ought to be entirely allowed, to slip away—the constituencies are entitled, through their representatives, to have a say, not only in the finance of the country, but in all the questions of policy which in the procedure of this House are tied up with considerations of finance, and therefore it will be in a very true sense of the word a revolutionary change if, out of the 707 Members elected from all parts of the country, the whole of this most impor-
tant branch of business is to be confined to some fifty or sixty Members. An hon. Member spoke about the disillusion that befalls men when they come into this House, and there is one aspect of that of which I should like to remind hon. Members. There is a sort of general idea out of doors that a Member of Parliament has only to be in this House to be able to bring to the attention of Parliament all the hundred-and-one questions which interest people out of doors. Constituencies think that in everything which affects them, a small group of them or the whole of them, they have only to put their trust in their representative in this House so that he will take an early opportunity of drawing the attention of the Government and the public to it. A Gentleman is not a Member of the House long before he finds that week succeeds week, month succeeds month, and the Session slips away and he has no opportunity of bringing forward the particular question, which he, on behalf of his constituents, wishes to bring forward. One of the few opportunities hitherto has been in connection with some Vote of Supply.
There has been a good deal of discussion, and very important discussion, as to the opportunities for discussing Supply. My right hon. Friend just now referred to great questions of policy, and whether or not there would be adequate opportunity for discussing them. But in addition to great questions of policy, what may be called full-dress Debates on administration, there are a great number of secondary points, matters connected with, we will say, the payment of a group of workpeople, the administration of local post offices or asylums, or matters in connection with local administration which Members of the House look forward to being able to ventilate conveniently, and the only opportunity is in connection with some Vote of Supply. It is a very serious thing, however unavoidable, that only some fifty or sixty Members will have any opportunity, and that only upstairs, of bringing these matters forward. Of course, the saving of Votes A and 1, the Service Votes, from the operation of this Clause will give opportunities as heretofore for discussing on the floor of the House the main policy as regards those Services, but the experience of most private Members here is that the Debate on those subjects is confined to very few Members. Generally the
Minister in charge makes a long and eloquent exposition on the administration of his Department, and he is followed by a few hon. Members who are either experts or are particularly interested in administration, and all the minor points which may be relevant to the Vote have to be left for other Votes than A and 1. Those opportunities will be gone except to a very few select Members, and that is a change in the procedure of the House which ought to be very carefully considered before this is made part of the permanent procedure. My right hon. Friend has told us it is not, as yet at all events, to be a permanent feature. I certainly cannot, after what, he has told us, in any way oppose the passing of this Clause now, because he has satisfactorily explained to us that the necessity of getting the Second Heading of Bills in the early part of the Session makes it necessary to clear the decks, so to speak. I hope, since he has promised that the whole matter will be carefully considered before a permanent change in our procedure is made, he will not leave altogether out of account the point I have brought to his attention, although I quite admit that it is of secondary importance compared with some other matters which were brought forward earlier in the Debate.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS.: I have felt it my duty to oppose so many of my right hon. Friend's proposals for the rearrangement of our Standing Orders that I am glad to congratulate him on this, which I think will give much greater power to private Members to deal with finanacial questions. Financial questions have hitherto been relegated almost to the end of the Supply day, because the days of Supply have been taken up with large and important questions. I am certain the private Member, for whom I have been fighting in the last two days, will have much more opportunity of doing useful work in Supply in this Committee upstairs. I think my right hon. Friend misunderstood something I interjected just now. When the right hon. Gentleman (Sir D. Maclean) was speaking as to the choice of days in Supply I suggested that there were several of us who would be able to choose, and my right hon. Friend said he did not want that. What I meant to intimate was that we were entitled to say we could not accept the view that the right hon. Gentleman. who represents such a very
small number of Members, should have the whole selection of the subjects on these twenty days. I think his suggestion of twenty days is admirable. I suggested yesterday to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bonar Law) and the Chief Whip that in allotting dates in Supply to different questions, with all deference to the right hon. Gentleman (Sir D. Maclean), as there is no Opposition in the real sense of the term it would be quite unfair to the large mass of Members of the House if the right hon. Gentleman or the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Adamson) should have the final say, but the Chief Whip in settling the days should pay some deference to the wishes of other large bodies in the House besides those two.

8.0 P.M.

Lord R. CECIL: I only rise to express one word of hope that my right hon. Friend will not be led away by the hon. Member for the Scotland division of Liverpool (Mr. O'Connor) into accepting the very dangerous proposal which he has made. The hon. Member thinks that all Departments of the Government need control. I do not think they need control; what they need is stimulation. I am quite sure the hon. Member would agree with me that the real difficulty of the present administrative system of this country is, not that we have a reckless set of administrators who are always trying to rush through experiments, but the difficulty is to get anything done at all. The complication of business is so great and so increasing, and the time of the individuals who are in control of the various Departments is so much occupied, that it is almost impossible to get any administrative reforms carried through, except those that are absolutely and vitally necessary. The hon. Member said that we should have been much better off in the War if there had been an Army and Navy Committee to watch the conduct of the War. Does he really think so? Does he really seriously believe that we should have had a more vigorous prosecution of the War if the administration of the Army and Navy had not only to satisfy the Cabinet that it was right, but had then to go and satisfy a Committee of this House? They would have been hampered at every turn. They would have scarcely ventured to take any step that was necessary for the defence of the country. The hon. Member thinks that such a Committee would have discovered certain defects which escaped the vigilance
of the Government. I am quite sure he is wrong. They would work necessarily under extreme difficulties. They would be a body of critics and not a body of suggestors. They would not have sufficient information on which to make suggestions; they would be simply critics, and the result would have been, I am sure, a paralysis of the essential forces of the country.
I believe no better example could be given to show how dangerous these proposals are than the experience of this country during the late War. I do not want to say one word in the least way offensive in criticism of other countries, but I do not share the hon. Gentleman's admiration for their systems of government. I do not think they are any better than ours. I do not really believe they get better results. I believe an impartial survey of what has been done in the late War will show that merely as an administrative machine this country did not do so badly. I am sure that it did not do worse than the other countries who were engaged in the War. With respect to the Foreign Office I am sure the desired object would not be obtained in the least. A Committee sitting to examine into the Foreign Office would not be able in the least to drag into light the secrets that the Foreign Minister chose to keep. They would not be able to find out any more than this House can find out. In point of fact I do not think it would be able to discover secrets. My own belief is that the Foreign Office should keep in the closest touch with this House. I agree with the hon. Gentleman in that, but the difficulty of any statement made by the Foreign Minister in public debate in this House is this, that it binds the Foreign Office—and therefore the Minister has to be exceedingly cautious—not only in this country, but all over the world. He has to be exceedingly careful what he says in public.
I think, but I am not sure it is the popular view, that Foreign Office Debates ought frequently to be held in Secret Session. In that case the Minister could speak much more freely. It is not a question of giving away secrets. The question is that of making statements which will afterwards be used against him by foreign Powers. If the statements were made in Secret Session he could speak much more freely. He is anxious generally to explain fully his policy. He
does not want to keep from the House any material parts of his policy. He would be only too glad—and I speak as one who has been in connection with the Foreign Office—to have an opportunity of explaining what his policy really is. I know that is not germane to this discussion, but I am sure that if you dragged the Foreign Minister, already one of the hardest worked officials in the country, down to a Committee and cross-examine him as to what he was doing, and why he was doing it, you would not get any useful result, but you would sap his energy and you would infuse into the Foreign Minister, so far as you produced any effect upon the Minister at all, an anxiety to do as little as he could so as to avoid the criticism which he would have to face before the Committee. I do hope and trust my right hon. Friend, in his anxiety for economy, which I fully share, and in his great desire to find some means of control, and of bringing home to the House the necessity for curtailing expenditure, will not be led away into the plan that the hon. Member for Liverpool has put before him. That I am sure would be disastrous to the public administration of this country. It would not give any real Parliamentary control, but it would add enormously to the burden of the Ministers of the day, a burden which is a serious public evil under the existing state of things.

Mr. O'CONNOR: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question again proposed.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: It pleases me to find myself for once differing from the Noble Lord opposite. I cannot help thinking that the control of the public over public Departments exercised by these Standing Committees although it has obvious disadvantages at first, must in the long run lead to an improvement in the government of the country. This change in so far as it does put the different public Departments more in touch with Members of this House must in the long run improve the relations between public Departments and Members of the House of Commons, and give them some slight insight into the working of public Departments, and thereby suggest to those who are dealing with these Departments various ways of reforming the Departments, and getting them to move more
smoothly in the long run. It is not as if these Committees were going to be small Committees like the French Committees consisting of ten or 15 Members. In that case there might be some fear of the hon. Members who sat on those Committees becoming officials.

Lord R. CECIL: I do not wish to be thought to have any criticism of the Government's proposal as it stands. On the contrary I think examination by the Standing Committees might well be productive of useful result. What I am afraid of was the adoption of the policy of the hon. Member for Liverpool.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am glad to find that we are of the same mind. I think the Government's proposals, so far as these Committees on Finance are concerned will lead to more effective co-operation between the House and the Departments, and will not tend to turn Members of this House into officials of those Departments. There is one point on which the Leader of the House has not quite met us. Many Members on this side are extremely grateful for the increase of the twelve days to twenty, but it should be observed that previously we had not twenty but twenty-three days. There was always one day getting the Speaker out of the Chair on the Civil Service Estimates, another on the Army, and another on the Navy Estimates, so that there were twenty-three days on which the administration and policy of the Government could be discussed. If the right hon. Gentleman could restore the whole twenty-three days we would feel that a good deal of our criticism had missed fire and that perhaps we were really getting a more efficient as well as a more democratic Government. But those extra three days rather rankle when we remember that the Government Departments to be criticised have increased in number and in the scope of their work.
For instance, there is the new Railway Department which would naturally require at least a day to discuss. Then there is India, which is now going to be put on the Estimates, and the day for discussing the Indian Budget will become a day for discussing the Indian Estimates here. Then we have the Food Controller, the Minister of Commerce and many other new Departments, so that we have got a large increase in the number of Government Departments whose policy and administration ought to be watched by this House. Therefore it is unfortunate to see the days
allotted to discussing that administration, and keeping in touch with the working of these Departments, cut down from twenty-three to twenty. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the long speech at the beginning of each day by the Minister in charge of the Department was one of the best ways of keeping Members of the House, and consequently our Constituents, in touch with what the Government Departments were doing, and though we sometimes jibbed at Lord Haldane when he gave us a three hours' speech on the Army, we all knew, having listened to that speech, that we should be able to go down and tell our constituents what the Government were doing. The value of this House is not in trying to persuade the Government to do something or in the Government in persuading us to do something. Its value is that the Government, by means of Members of Parliament and through the Press, is able to give its case for its administration. If the Government cannot give its case, then the public and the Press are apt to go quite wrong and to blame the Government quite unjustly and quite unnecessarily.
It is most important, indeed it is essential, that Ministers should have a chance of stating to the public their views. They will get some sort of chance upstairs by watching these Committees, but owing to the extremely limited accommodation for the Press and the absence of verbatim reports, it would be extremely difficult for those whom I may call minor Ministers to get their case stated to the public. One of the chief difficulties of our Indian administration is that Indian Ministers have no chance of getting their case put before the Indian people. They have tried a bought Press and all sorts of means to put forward their case, and yet there is unrest, although the Government, in ninety-nine cases out of 100, could have explained and have justified their actions in particular matters. We want our Government here to have the best opportunities of stating its case. We will criticise it here, but let it have a chance of stating its case here just as its critics have a chance of stating their case outside. For that purpose I do beg that the Government, if not this year at least next year, will give us not only twenty-three days, but perhaps more.
And when these days are given, do not let them be given for the discussion of
one single subject, but for the discussion of everything that would be discussed on the Estimate of the Department concerned. For instance, if we are discussing the Board of Trade, do not let the whole of the sitting be devoted to the question of whether the Board of Trade is keeping foodstuffs out of the country. Let any Member be able to raise any other subject. We do not want one single Resolution; we want to deal with the administration of the whole Department. The hon. Member for St. Augustine's made a very sound point. Many Members are interested in some particular subject, and if you are going to take these twenty days and devote them to certain Resolutions put forward, whether by the hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) or by the Opposition Whips, then you are curtailing free discussion in this House just as much as though you did not allow us the twenty days. For instance, when the Colonial Office comes on we want to be able to discuss different subjects, whether the cartel in Nigeria, the administration of British East Africa, or the action of the British South African Company, and we do not want to be cut down merely to one subject. Therefore I beg the Government when they give us these days not to give them on one subject, but to give them on one branch of the Estimates, so that we shall retain the privilege of private Members, and so that we may have all complaints about the grievances of our constituents discussed in a full House in the middle of the day, and that we shall not have to resort, as we have had to do during the last four years, to speaking on the Adjournment, which is an extremely unsatisfactory way of raising the question.
Then, I think, the Committees on the Estimates should go in rotation. There is plenty of argument, of course, in making a Grand Committee which deals with the Foreign Office Estimates, for instance, deal with all Estimates. They will get, perhaps, to be more efficient in their criticism of administration, in seeing where money can be spent and saved, and what questions can be asked. But it is not fair to give the whole of the Estimates to one Grand Committee. We ought to spread them out over a lot of Grand Committees, and by co-ordinating the action of those Committees we should come to see the best way of making the Committees' criticism effective from a financial point of view. We have tried various expedients.
I have sat on the Estimates Committee. We tried there a system that did not work. Now you are going to have another failure. Perhaps four of these Grand Committees, if you will allow them to go on working at this, will get to know the situation, and we may involve a satisfactory way of getting the unnecessary expense of these Departments cut down.
Further, I do hope that the Government will see that Members are changed on these Committees. If you put on fifteen Members for the Colonial Office and fifteen Members for dealing with the Foreign Office and fifteen different Members for the Board of Trade, let the old Members be changed. More than that. I would urge that the Grand Committees themselves, where practicable, should be changed from Session to Session, so that you would not have the same men sitting on these Committees every year. It is necessary that they should be the same in the case of the Public Accounts Committees, or perhaps the Selection Committee, but in the case of these Grand Committees let us have a change so that every Member shall have a chance of getting on, and do not let us confine the Membership to the fortunate people who manage to pull with the Whips or with the Selection Committees. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the twenty days, and I hope that he will see his way in future to increase it to twenty-five days.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Does the hon. and gallant Member move the Amendment which is on the Paper?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I do not move it.

Sir F. BANBURY: As a Member of the Committee on National Expenditure and Committees, I would like to say a few words. I do not agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite that the Estimates Committee was a failure. The Estimates Committee was a new Committee set up in 1912. It was continued in 1913 and 1914 but was not set up in 1915 as there were no Estimates. Being an entirely new Committee it had to make rules and to start operations at the beginning, but I think I may venture to say that the Estimates Committee was a great success. I see another hon. Member present who was on that Committee. He is not of the same party as I am and I do not know what his opinion is. It
must be remembered that the Estimates Committee is not to be judged by what happened in this House, but by its influence on the Departments. From my personal knowledge, and I was chairman of the Committee, I came to the conclusion, which I believe is correct, that it had a very salutary effect upon the spending officials of the Departments, because they never knew whether they would not be called before that Committee to answer extremely awkward questions. Perhaps I ought to explain for the benefit of new Members that that Committee consisted of twenty-six members and had the power to send for persons, papers and records, and hear evidence and have cross-examination. That is a very important power and a power which is not given to the proposed Standing Committees. Just like the Public Accounts Committee we had an official who was a servant of the House and was employed all the year round. He had the right to go into any Department and investigate Votes and expenditure and report to us, and we could call upon any official and ask him to justify what had been done. I think, personally, that would be a far bettter way of proceeding than by sending the Estimates upstairs to Committees consisting of forty or sixty people who would do what is done here. They have no power to call witnesses or to hear evidence, and what will happen? Certain questions will arise, probably minor questions, such as whether a certain person should be paid rather higher wages or matters of that sort, but when larger questions arise they will not be reported, and the public will not know what is going on. The Government will say, "Oh, it is true, they did move a reduction, but it was only in Standing Committee, and we shall not pay any attention to it, and nobody knows anything about it." Therefore the result of these proposals will be to free the Government from perhaps very necessary criticism. There will be no opportunity given to Members economically inclined to see that no undue expenditure takes place. I think all Members will agree that one of the disadvantages at present is that the majority of Members are in favour of increasing expenditure and not of economy. Economy is only possible when you get a Special Committee, like the Estimates Committee, consisting of a small number of Members who set aside all party feelings, and who sit simply as Members of the House. That is what
took place on the Estimates Committee, and that is the only way in which you can get any actual control over expenditure.
Reference has been made to the ninth Report of the Committee on National Expenditure. We went into the matters concerned at very great length, and took a great deal of trouble to investigate them. That Committee consisted of very distinguished Members of the House, and the only result of its Report is that every single recommendation we have made has been ignored by the Government. We say, for instance,
The presentation of Estimates to Parliament serves, no doubt, a useful purpose. It secures publicity for the sums which they include and fixes responsibility for their expenditure.
We have already agreed that there is not to be any Official Report of these new Committees. The Report continued:
It has an indirect influence also on Members and Departments, since there is always the possibility that any item may be selected and challenged. The Debates in Committee of Supply are indispensable for the discussion of policy and administration. But so far as the direct effective control of proposals for expenditure is concerned it would be true to say, that if the Estimates were never presented and the Committee of Supply never set up there would be no noticeable difference.
I think that is the experience of every Member of the House who had studied Supply and the proceedings of the House in Committee. We wanted to remedy that, and our remedy was not to set up a big Committee of fifty or sixty people who would have no more effect than the Committee of this House, but to set up a business Committee consisting of a small number of members. We proposed to set up two such Committees, as we thought one Committee could not deal sufficiently and efficiently with all the Estimates in the year, and that if necessary there should be a third Committee. I thought myself that two would have been sufficient because it is extremely difficult to get a regular attendance. It must be remembered that in this Committee of which I speak there was generally a very full attendance of Members. We wanted Members who not only understood finance but who would attend so that they would follow the whole proceedings throughout. That seems to me to be the best proposal I have ever known made for economy in this House, if it is the desire of the House to be economical. Personally, I think, that at the present moment our chief object should be to secure economy, because if we do not do that I do not really know
where we are going to, though I will not pursue that aspect of the matter since it is rather outside the question. That is the only way to assure efficient control. The way that is here proposed does not do that. All it does is, is to remove Members from responsibility. It destroys the old right of the House on Committee of Supply to raise questions of grievances and of policy. If the recommendations of the Committee on National Expenditure had been carried out, the old system of enabling Members to ventilate their grievances on Supply would have been preserved. We made other suggestions which I need not go into now. I can assure hon. Members we devoted many days to the consideration of these proposals, which were very carefully thought out. I cannot conceive why our recommendations were not accepted. If it really was the sincere desire of His Majesty's Government to promote economy and efficiency in discussing the Estimates, I say undoubtedly they ought to have accepted our proposals. But if it merely wants to shift the difficulties from their shoulders and so arrange that the important questions shall be discussed upstairs without anybody knowing anything about them, then they have succeeded in their object. I am quite certain they will not by these proposals either ensure economy or that private Members will be able to exercise the old privilege, which they have had for centuries, of ventilating their grievances in Committee of Supply. All these Rules are revolutionary, and I think they are bad. This is the worst of all of them, and it is put down for the present Session only. If it is a good thing, it ought to go on for ever. I do not want to draw conclusions, but I have my own opinion as to the reasons why these particular proposals are made.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I should not like the Debate to be closed without, so far as I am concerned, and those who are associated with me, expressing to the Leader of the House and to the Attorney-General our appreciation of the courtesy with which they have met us. I think the Government will agree that there has been no obstructive criticism, but that we have all tried to arrive at the largest good for the greatest number. With regard to this particular proposal, so far as I can see, it goes a long way to meet the main portion of our position, which was that policy should be discussed in public, and the experiment is going to be made for
a year. I hope that in the discussion of the details of these Estimates great good will come from this proposal. I again express my regret that the Government have not seen fit to have an official summary for public use of the proceedings of these Committees. I am certain there will be great dissatisfaction about it. However, they have taken that decision, and they must take the consequences. I I do not wish to end on that note, but to express again our grateful appreciation of the courtesy and fairness with which we have been met.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I understand that the only Amendment to make is the Government Amendment to leave out paragraph (b)?

Sir G. HEWART: I beg to move, to leave out paragraph (b).
Amendment agreed to.
Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Sir G. HEWART: I beg to move, as a new Standing Order:

"Money Committees (Reports).

The proceedings on the Report of the Committees of Ways and Means and Committees authorising the expenditure of public money, except the Committee of Supply, may be entered upon after Eleven of the clock, though opposed, and shall not be interrupted under the provisions of the Standing Order, 'Sittings of the House.' "

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved, "That this Order be a Standing Order of the House."—[Sir G. Hewart.]

Sir G. HEWART: I beg to move, as a new Standing Order:

"Consolidated Fund Issues.

A Resolution authorising the issue of money out of the Consolidated Fund reported from the Committee of Ways and Means may be considered forthwith by the House, and the consideration on Report and Third Reading of a Bill ordered to be brought in upon such a Resolution or Resolutions may be taken forthwith as soon as the Bill has been reported from Committee of the Whole House."

Sir F. BANBURY: I do not know whether it is any use appealing to my right hon. Friend to withdraw this new Standing Order, the effect of which, as I understand it, will be to allow the three stages of a Money Bill to be taken on one day, that is to say, the Committee, the Report and the Third Reading. The custom from time immemorial has been
that while various stages of other Bills could, if urgency required, be taken on one day, no more than one stage of a Money Bill could be token on one day unless on a Motion made by a Minister of the Crown authorising that to be done. During the War that was done on various occasions, and I never remember it being opposed, but now we are going to say that the various stages of a Money Bill can be taken on one day. It very often happens that when in Committee on a Money Bill certain things occur, on the next day when the Report takes place a Member may have thought of something which ought to have been put in, and it gives him an opportunity of bringing that question up, or again the private Member will be deprived of his rights of criticism on Money Bills, and this at a time when we have taken away from the House of Lords the power of dealing with Money Bills. I therefore hope the Attorney-General will not press the Amendment.

Sir G. HEWART: The proposal is to enable the necessary but nevertheless formal vote in Ways and Means for an issue of money out of the Consolidated Fund to make good the Supply granted to His Majesty to be considered on Report on the same day with the Committee stage and the Third Reading on the same day with the Report. As a matter of fact, that time-saving provision has frequently been made in the case of specific Bills. My right hon. Friend would not be in any way debarred from being heard on every one of those necessary stages. It is a permissive proposal for the mere purpose of saving time.

Sir F. BANBURY: As I understand it, it is not that a Motion may be made so that we can say we do not think it ought to be done, but it is a new Standing Order authorising the Government to take all these stages on one day, and we should have no opportunity of doing anything to prevent that. We should only have an opportunity of discussing the different stages as they arise.

Sir G. HEWART: That is what I meant. It would be possible to take these stages upon one day, but on every one of those stages those who had objections to raise could be heard.

Sir F. BANBURY: But that does not meet my point, which is that when an objection is raised on a particular day it is
considered, but on the following day fresh matters may present themselves, and what did not appear very important on the day it was raised might have become very important. I think that my right hon. Friend knows that a discussion on the Committee stage of the Consolidated Fund Bill is not generally taken, and it goes through in a very few moments. So that there is no question of saving time, but it is another attempt to whittle away the privileges of private Members.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved, "That this Order be a Standing Order of the House."—[Sir. G. Hewart.]

Sir G. HEWART: I beg to move, as a new Standing Order,

"Money Committees.

Notwithstanding any Standing Order or custom of the House, if notice is given of a Resolution authorising expenditure in connection with a Bill, the House may, if the recommendation of the Crown is signified thereto, at any time after such notice appeal's on the Paper resolve itself into Committees to consider the Resolution, and the Resolution, when reported, may be considered forthwith by the House."

Sir F. BANBURY: I must raise objection again to this. I think this is rather more important than the other one. It means that when a Resolution, authorising expenditure of money in a certain Bill, is sanctioned by a Committee, the Report stage can be taken at once. Many Resolutions appear suddenly at the Clerk's desk, and no one knows about them. The Resolution merely authorises an expenditure of money which the Government think fit, and I have several times said that before we sanction such a proposal we really must know how much money the Government is going to spend, or, at any rate, give some idea. The answer has always been, "We do not exactly know, but we can give you an answer on the Report stage," which is taken a day or two afterwards, when the Government is in a position to give an answer. The Report stage has then been taken advantage of to put a limit upon the amount, and it has sometimes resulted in the defeat of the Government. Under the new Order, it would be impossible for the Government to give an answer. The Government may say that they do not know what the amount is, the Report stage will be taken within two or three minutes of the Committee, and the matter is ended, and we shall never be able to find out from the Government what it is they are going to spend. I
think this is very much worse than the other, and I hope, as I have been unfortunate in the other, I may get some return with regard to this one.

Sir G. HEWART: If the right hon. Baronet will allow me to say so, he has approached this matter in a thoroughly characteristic way. What is his complaint? It is, if I follow him, that a document is mysteriously produced from the desk of an official, and the House is suddenly made aware that a Financial Resolution is necessary. He thinks this proposal is going to aggravate that?

Sir F. BANBURY: The Report stage is put upon the Order Paper, whereas the other appears on the Clerk's desk.

Sir G. HEWART: That is the reverse of this proposal, which is for the simple purpose of expediting procedure in connection with the financial provisions of a Bill. At present, as the House is aware, the Committee and the Report stages must be taken on separate days, and what is proposed here is that that process may be taken in two days, or conceivably in one day. But, I am sure, my right hon. Friend observes the important words, "at any time after such notice appears on the Paper."

Sir F. BANBURY: I gather that this Resolution is to be printed on the Paper. I do not think this ensures that that will be done.

Sir G. HEWART: I am sorry to differ from the right hon. Baronet. At present the terms are not disclosed. This notice will require a disclosure of the terms.

Sir F. BANBURY: Am I to understand that the terms will be anything more than. "It is expedient to authorise the expenditure out of public moneys" for such-and-such things, and that the amount will not be specified? That is my point. As I understand, the document which used
to be on the Clerk's desk will now appear on the Order Paper, and my point is that we ought to have a second occasion, to allow the Government an opportunity of putting in a limit to the amount.

Sir G. HEWART: If my right hon. Friend will look at the terms of this new Standing Order, the condition is "if notice is given of a Resolution authorising expenditure in connection with a Bill." That does not mean notice that some Resolution is to be proposed. That notice means a notice giving the terms of the Resolution.

Sir F. BANBURY: And the amount?

Sir G. HEWART: I do not know whether the exact amount is given in each case. In some cases it is. Whatever the full terms of the Resolution may be, those are the terms of which notice has to be given in order that this condition may be satisfied.

Sir F. BANBURY: I am afraid I have not been convinced, because I never remember an occasion in which the amount has been put in, except when I have moved a Resolution, to put it in, and carried it in that form.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved, "That this Order be a Standing Order of the House."—[Sir G. Hewart.]

The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. Deputy-Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of the 12th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do no adjourn."

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Ten minutes before Nine o'clock.'